DETAILED ACTION
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 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Wolff, applicant argues that Wolff fails to teach the use of an information element per radio bearer out of multiple radio bearers. Examiner respectfully traverses this argument, because the mere fact that handover parameters for each bearer are sent in a single RRC Reconfiguration message does not imply that a single information element would be used to send those parameters. Examiner believes Wolff to be clear that separate handover parameters for each bearer (~different IEs) are sent in that RRC message (see Wolff, paragraphs 86-88).
Applicant further argues that motivation for combining Wolff’s teachings with Paladugu is lacking because Wolff’s handover parameters are sent from a base station to a user device, and not from a source base station to a target base station. Examiner respectfully traverses this argument.
Examiner first notes that Paladugu teaches handover parameters being provided by the source base station to the UE and by the source base station to the target base station (see paragraphs 88 and 109-111). Examiner believes that the combination of Wolff’s teachings and Paladugu’s teachings would result in per bearer handover configuration parameters being sent by the source base station not just to the UE, but to the target base station as well.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17, 20, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0253945 (Paladugu et al.) in view of US 2016/0088527 (Wolff et al.).
As to claims 17 and 24, Paladugu teaches a wireless communication apparatus (130, fig 2) comprising a processor (290, fig 2) configured to implement a method, the processor when configured causes the wireless communication apparatus to:
transmitting, by a source node to a target node and during handover of a wireless terminal from the source node to the target node, a message indicating whether to apply a simultaneous connectivity mobility of a wireless terminal for a radio bearer during a mobility procedure from the source node to the target node until a connection to the source node is released, wherein the applying of the simultaneous connectivity mobility includes keeping connections with both the source node and the target node for the respective radio bearer (see paragraphs 83, 88, 91 and 109, source CU/BS sends UE capability indicating simultaneous tx/rx capability to target CU/BS and the two negotiate handover parameters including whether to use MBB [~simultaneous connectivity] to establish a MBB handover type based on that information); and
transmit, by the source node to the wireless terminal, a radio resource control (RRC) message that includes at least one information element (IE) for the respective radio bearer to indicate whether to apply the simultaneous connectivity mobility of the wireless terminal for the respective radio bearer (see step 820 and paragraphs 64, 110 and 111, source CU sends RRC message to UE which indicates the UE is to maintain connection to source during handover until release),
wherein the connections for the respective radio bearer with both the source node and the target node are kept until the connection with the source node is released (see paragraphs 64 and 110, handover message from source indicate to maintain connection to source during handover).
What is explicitly lacking from Paladugu is per radio bearer of a plurality of radio bearers such that the radio resource control (RRC) message includes at least one information element (IE) per respective radio bearer of the plurality of radio bearers.
In analogous art, Wolff teaches a user device establishing multiple bearers with a
source base station such that handover from a source to target base station includes
the source base station providing handover related configuration information (~IEs) for each of the multiple bearers (see Wolff, paragraph 86-88).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to apply this teaching to Paladugu so as to provide for enhanced services to
the user of the wireless terminal.
As to claims 20 and 27, Paladugu further teaches wherein the message to the target node includes context reference information of the wireless terminal at the target node (see paragraphs 83, 88, 91 and 109, source CU/BS sends UE capability indicating simultaneous tx/rx capability to target CU/BS and the two negotiate handover parameters including whether to use MBB [~simultaneous connectivity] to establish a MBB handover type based on that information).
Claims 18-19 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0253945 (Paladugu et al.) in view of US 2016/0088527 (Wolff et al.) as applied to claims 17 and 24 above, and further in view of US 2019/0349139 (Park et al.).
As to claims 18 and 25, what is lacking from Paladugu is wherein the processor is configured to further cause the wireless communication apparatus to:receive a context modification response that includes two sets of downlink transport information items per radio bearer.
In analogous art, Park teaches a CU node (~source node of Paladugu) receiving a bearer context modification confirm message that includes a first and second DL TEID (see Park, paragraph 206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to apply Park’s teachings to Paladugu so as to increase the quality of services to UEs by utilizing packet duplication.
As to claims 19 and 26, Paladugu further teaches wherein the processor is configured to further cause the wireless communication apparatus to:include an indication that bearing packets are ciphered and integrity protected with a source key or a target key per downlink transport information item (see paragraph 85, ciphering/integrity using a security key).
Claims 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0253945 (Paladugu et al.) in view of US 2016/0088527 (Wolff et al.) as applied to claims 17 and 24 above, and further in view of US 2020/0396652 (Decarreau et al).
As to claims 21 and 28, what is further lacking from Paladugu is wherein the RRC message includes an IE including an RRC transaction identification (ID) for identifying a handover (HO) command.
In analogous art, Decarreau teaches this feature (see Decarreau, paragraph 131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to apply this teaching to Paladugu so as to clearly establish the triggering of the handover.
Claims 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0253945 (Paladugu et al.) in view of US 2016/0088527 (Wolff et al.) as applied to claims 17 and 24 above, and further in view of US 2020/0187073 (Ma et al.).
As to claims 22 and 29, what is further lacking from Paladugu is wherein the RRC message includes one or more IEs for configuration of security parameters for the target node..
In analogous art, Ma teaches this feature (see Ma, paragraphs 56 and 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to apply this teaching to Paladugu so as to ensure a secure connection to the target cell.
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0253945 (Paladugu et al.) in view of US 2016/0088527 (Wolff et al.) as applied to claims 17 and 24 above, and further in view of US 2019/0124572 (Park et al.).
As to claims 21 and 28, what is further lacking from Paladugu is wherein the RRC message includes one or more IEs configured per packet data protocol convergence (PDCP) entity for configuration of header compression parameters for the target node.
In analogous art, Park teaches a handover process in which a serving base station sends to a wireless device an RRC reconfiguration message for initiating a handover to a second base station having a PDCP entity. Included in this message is PDCP configuration parameters and head compression information (see Park, paragraph 341 and figure 6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Paladugu so as to further ensure seamless handover.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641