DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 2-3 and 6-10 have been withdrawn (election selection).
Claims 11-28 have been cancelled.
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/03/2026. Claims 1 and 4-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that first, Decarreau does not teach or suggest that "the first network node having a direct signaling connection to a core network whereas the second network node is signaling connected to the core network via the first network node. Nothing in Decarreau teaches or suggests any scenario in which one base station's signaling connection to the core network is routed through another base station
Examiner respectively disagrees. Firstly, there is nothing “a direct signaling connection to a core network whereas the second network node is signaling connected to the core network via the first network node” in the body of claim. Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,[…any scenario in which one base station's signaling connection to the core network is routed through another base station]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, Decarreau teaches the term "base station" is used to refer to entities that provide wireless connectivity within the wireless communication system 100 such as eNodeBs, base station routers, home base station routers, access points, metrocells (core network), microcells, picocells, femtocells, and the like (paragraph 9).
In addition, UE 105 is directly connect to base station 101 wherein they exchange direction signaling without any intermediary signaling (e.g., there is no relay between them. Further, Fig. 1 is an exemplary configuration of any of the cells 111-114 can be configured as metrocells (core network) with any kind of signaling.
Applicant argued that Decarreau is teaching each of the base stations 101-104 establishes its own independent connection to the core network, rather than routing signaling through another base station (see remarks (09/03/2026) page 7 second pargraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,[… rather than routing signaling through another base station) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argued that Decarreau does not teach "in response to the reception of the PCI, sending a request to the second network node initiating the second network node to set-up a secondary connection with the UE," as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Decarreau teaches “gNB can be sure (an acknowledgement) that this cell is the right target cell of the handover and start the handover procedure (set-up procedure) or gNB receives radio link (RLF) indication (set-up failure)” (paragraphs 17-18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Decarreau et al. (US 2020/0187067 Al).
For claim 1 Decarreau teaches a method performed by a first network node of a wireless communication network, the first network node being of a first radio access network technology, the wireless communication network further comprising a second network node of a second radio access technology, the first network node having a direct signaling connection to a core network whereas the second network node is signaling-connected to the core network via the first network node (Fig. 1 “UE 105 is connected to the base station 101 in cell 111 and is reeving a signal from base station 102 in cell 112” and paragraph 9 “3G, 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, IEEE 802.11 and the like networks”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a User Equipment, UE, that has a primary connection to the first network node, a Physical Cell Identity, PCI, that matches a PCI of a cell controlled by the second network node (paragraph 13 “base station 101 receives from UE 105 reports including PCI neighboring cells”);
in response to the reception of the PCI, sending a request to the second network node initiating the second network node to set-up a secondary connection with the UE (paragraphs 17-18 “gNB request to set up beam measurement (initiate set-up a secondary connection) for the UE 305”), and
receiving, from the second network node, an acknowledgement of a performed secondary connection set-up with the UE, the acknowledgement comprising an ID of the UE, or, obtaining information on a secondary connection set-up failure with the UE (paragraphs 17-18 “gNB can be sure (an acknowledgement) that this cell is the right target cell of the handover and start the handover procedure or gNB receives radio link (RLF) indication (set-up failure)”).
For claim 4 Decarreau teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring any response from the second network node to the request sent to the second network node, and receiving the acknowledgement of performed secondary connection or obtaining the information on secondary connection set-up failure as a result of the monitoring (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 5 Decarreau teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
selectively acting in response to whether the acknowledgement of performed secondary connection set-up was received or whether the information on secondary connection set-up failure was obtained (as discussed in claim 1).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rugeland et al. (US2022/0007255 A1) “a wireless device and method for re-establishing a radio connection in a communication network comprising a first RAT and a different RAT”, Ericsson, Jan. 6, 2022.
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270 - 1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
