Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 6/9/2026, page 9, lines 3+):
“Regarding the feature "sending, by a first network element, a first request message to a second network element to request to establish a connection, wherein the first request message further indicates, to the second network element, to establish a connection to at least one of N network elements other than the first network element, wherein a first cell group managed by the first network element and N cell groups managed by the N network elements belong to a candidate cell set of a dynamic cell set (DCS), and N is an integer greater than 2," which includes some limitations originally found in dependent claim 3, Saily does not specifically teach this limitation.”
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner contends that the limitation:
“wherein the first request message further indicates, to the second network element, to establish a connection to at least one of N network elements other than the first network element,”
is inherent in what Saily discloses.
In Fig. 2, Saily discloses gNB 170-1 and gNB 170-2 and a UE 110 moving from gNB 170-1 to gNB 170-2. As stated in CTNF (4/22/2026, page 4, 3rd last line of 2rd paragraph), the 1st network element is gNB1 and the 2ⁿᵈ network element is gNB2. When UE moves from gNB1 to gNB2, handover is made to gNB2.
In Fig. 3, steps 2 and 3, “Handover request (prepare)”, gNB1 makes a handover request to gNB2 and gNB3 ([0019]; [0104] – [0106]) i.e. gNB1 makes a handover request to network elements gNB2 and gNB3, which are network elements other than the first network element (gNB1).
Since UE 110 is already served by gNB1, it would make no sense to have UE 110 make a request to establish a connection to gNB1. The connection request would have to be to another gNB(s) that the UE is potentially moving to.
Hence, Saily discloses the claim limitation “wherein the first request message further indicates, to the second network element, to establish a connection to at least one of N network elements other than the first network element,”
N cell groups, with N > 2 is also disclosed by Saily ([0101]: “…the prepared gNBs 170 contains N=2 gNBs 170, although the number of gNBs 170 is assumed to be arbitrary, that is, gNBs 170 1, 2, 3, . . . N.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 - 4, 8 - 11, 15 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saily et al. (US 20220053399 A1; CN112740754A version provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 1, Saily discloses a method for configuring a dynamic cell set (DCS) (Fig, 2 shows UE moving between cells associated with gNBs 170; Fig. 3 shows UE/train moving between cells associated with gNBs 170; [0081] discloses “One gNB-CU supports one or multiple cells”; [0185] discloses “..determine, by a source base station, based on at least one of a measurement report received from a terminal device and a mobility trajectory of the terminal device, a prepared cell list that includes a set of cells where the terminal device is capable of handover.”; wherein configuring the dynamic cell set is preparing the cell list where the terminal is capable of handover), wherein the method comprises:
sending, by a first network element, a first request message to a second network element to request to establish a connection ([0102] discloses “Xn connections 480 (shown as 480-1, etc.) may be formed between gNBs 170”; wherein the request is inherent since a connection is made; Fig. 4, 480-1), wherein the first request message further indicates, to the second network element, to establish a connection to at least one of N network elements other than the first network element (Fig. 3 discloses multiple gNBs 170-2 and 170-3 other than the 1st; wherein the 1st could be 170-3 based on direction of travel of the UE. Fig. 4 also discloses multiple gNBs;
In Fig. 2, Saily discloses gNB 170-1 and gNB 170-2 and a UE 110 moving from gNB 170-1 to gNB 170-2. As stated in CTNF (4/22/2026, page 4, 3rd last line of 2rd paragraph), the 1st network element is gNB1 and the 2ⁿᵈ network element is gNB2. When UE moves from gNB1 to gNB2, handover is made to gNB2.
In Fig. 3, steps 2 and 3, “Handover request (prepare)”, gNB1 makes a handover request to gNB2 and gNB3 ([0019]; [0104] – [0106]) i.e. gNB1 makes a handover request to network elements gNB2 and gNB3, which are network elements other than the first network element (gNB1).
Since UE 110 is already served by gNB1, it would make no sense to have UE 110 make a request to establish a connection to gNB1. The connection request would have to be to another gNB(s) that the UE is potentially moving to.
Hence, Saily discloses the claim limitation “wherein the first request message further indicates, to the second network element, to establish a connection to at least one of N network elements other than the first network element,”),
wherein a first cell group managed by the first network element and xxx managed by the second network element belong to a candidate cell set of a dynamic cell set (DCS) (candidate cells as in [0185] and preamble above; 1st network element is gNB1 and 2nd network element is gNB2. When UE moves from gNB1 to gNB2, handover is made to gNB2), and N is an integer greater than 2 ([0101]: “…the prepared gNBs 170 contains N=2 gNBs 170, although the number of gNBs 170 is assumed to be arbitrary, that is, gNBs 170 1, 2, 3, . . . N.”);
and receiving, from the second network element, a first response message in response to sending the first request message (Fig. 4, e.g. step 9 or 16 “Handover complete acknowledgement”; [0114]; [0119]).
Regarding claim 2, Saily discloses wherein, when a terminal is handed over between cell groups comprised in the DCS (Fig. 4 shows handovers 8, 11, 14; [0019]; [0094]; [0096]), context information of the terminal is reserved on one or more network elements to which the cell groups in the DCS belong ([0095] discloses context preparation and “… context information that the cell receives during a handover preparation phase. For example, the context information may include radio bearer information and RRC context. The RRC context includes UE security capability, ….”).
Regarding claim 3, Saily discloses wherein
the first response message indicates that the second network element is successfully connected to the at least one of the N network elements other than the first network element (e.g. Fig. 4 discloses step 12, where connection is made to gNB3. Here gNB3 would be the other network element and gNB2 would be the 1st network element).
Regarding claim 4, Saily discloses wherein the first request message further indicates identifies any two of N network elements other than the first network element as a group to establish a connection (Fig. 3 discloses multiple gNBs 170-2 and 170-3 other than the 1st; wherein the 1st could be 170-3 based on direction of travel of the UE. [0081] discloses “The NG-RAN node may include multiple gNBs ….”; hence connection can be made to multiple gNBs);
and the first response message indicates that at least one group of any two of the N network elements other than the first network element are successfully connected (e.g. Fig. 4 discloses steps 9 and 12, where connection is made to gNB2 and gNB3).
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 8 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Memory and processor are disclosed by Saily (Fig. 1, elements 171, 175 in network element 190).
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claims 1 and 8.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 - 7, 12 - 14, 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saily et al. (US 20220053399 A1; CN112740754A version provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 5, Saily discloses the first network element sends the first request message to the second network element (Fig. 4, step 2; wherein the 1st network element is gNB1 and the 2nd network element is gNB2), the method further comprises:
requesting to separately establish a connection to at least one of the N network elements other than the first network element and the second network element (Fig. 4, step 3; wherein the other element is gNB3).
In Fig. 4, step 2 occurs before step 3. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily change the order based on UE measurements e.g. if gNB3 gave a better SNR, then a request to connect to gNB3 could be made before a request to connect to gNB2. This is obvious to try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use change the connection request order as above, because this would ensure that the best connection is obtained.
Regarding claim 6, Saily discloses wherein the first network element is successfully connected to the second network element (Fig. 4, steps 2, 4 discloses gNB1 and gNB2 communicating with each other, hence successfully connected).
The limitation “the method further comprises: requesting to establish a connection to the at least one of the N network elements other than the first network element” is analyzed as in claim 5 above.
Claim 7 is similarly analyzed as claim 6. Connection to any other network element can be made for the reasons stated in claim 5 rejection.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to context preparation of UE handover:
Nagaraja et al. (US 20130079007 A1) discloses neighbor cell list based on handover message.
Huang et al. (US 20140212129 A1) discloses remote radio header selection
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights