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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8 and 12, the Applicant argued that “(1) The references fail to disclose the conditional linkage of amended Claim 1, namely, "generating a data to be forwarded including the container, on the condition of identifying whether the second node supports a PDU set based handling."
What the response message of D1 contains is merely per-DRB forwarding tunnel information (transport layer address, GTP TEID) and the result of admission (admitted or failed) for each PDU set (9[0293]-[0297], [0302], [0304]); D1 contains neither a "PDU set based handling indicator information element" nor any feature of identifying what such element indicates and generating a data to be forwarded including the container. Applicants' confirm that the expression "specifying whether to support a handling of the PDU set(s)" cited by the Examiner is merely the Examiner's own characterization and is not a matter directly disclosed in D1. Applicants submit that, even if D2 and D3 are combined, this conditional linkage is found in none of the references, as set forth below” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, page 7).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the instant case, the Applicant clearly attacked Xu reference (D1) individually to show that the Xu reference does not teach “PDU set based handling indicator information element” or “any feature of identifying what such element indicates and generating a data to be forwarded including the container”, wherein the limitations are rejected by the combination of references (Xu, Luo and Leveno).
Xu teaches on paragraphs [290-298, 302, 304, 317] as follows:
[0290] In an example, as shown in FIG. 26 or in FIG. 27, BS2 may determine whether to accept the proposal of performing data forwarding from BS1. BS2 may determine to use the same DRB configuration and to map the same PDU sets to DRBs as BS1. The determination may be based on the received information from the BS1, as described above.
[0291] In an example, BS2 may further determine to accept or reject the first PDU set and/or the second PDU set. In an example, BS2 may further determine, based on the PDU sets importance/priority/type A/type B information, radio resources allocation handling for the first PDU set and/or the PDU set.
[0292] Based on the determination, as shown in FIG. 26 or in FIG. 27, BS2 may send to BS1 a response message. In FIG. 26, BS2 may send the response messages directly to BS1. In FIG. 27, BS2 may send the response message to BS1 via the target AMF 2 and the source AMF 1.
[0293] In an example, the response message may comprise at least one of: first data forwarding information for the first DRB associated with the first PDU set; second data forwarding information for the second DRB associated with the second PDU set.
[0294] In an example, the first data forwarding information for the first DRB associated with the first PDU set may comprise at least one of: the identifier of the first DRB, the first identifier of the first PDU set, a first downlink forwarding user plane transport and network layer information comprising a first transport layer address and a first general packet radio service (GPRS) tunnelling protocol (GTP) tunnel endpoint identifier, a first uplink forwarding user plane transport and network layer information comprising a second transport layer address and a second general packet radio service (GPRS) tunnelling protocol (GTP) tunnel endpoint identifier.
[0295] In an example, the second data forwarding information for the second DRB associated with the second PDU set may comprise at least one of: the identifier of the second DRB, the second identifier of the second PDU set, a second downlink forwarding user plane transport and network layer information comprising a third transport layer address and a third general packet radio service (GPRS) tunnelling protocol (GTP) tunnel endpoint identifier, a second uplink forwarding user plane transport and network layer information comprising a fourth transport layer address and a fourth general packet radio service (GPRS) tunnelling protocol (GTP) tunnel endpoint identifier.
[0296] In an example, the response message may indicate that BS2 accept the proposed data forwarding for the first DRB and the second DRB from BS1.
[0297] In an example, the response message may comprise one or more identifiers of the first PDU set or the second PDU set, wherein one or both of the first PDU set or the second PDU set are admitted or failed to be admitted. Upon failure of one or more of the first PDU set or the second PDU set, the response message may further comprise a cause value.
[0298] In an example, the cause value may comprise at least one of: radio resources not available, radio resources not available to accept both the PDU set 1 and 2, resources not available for the slice of the PDU set 1 and/or the PDU set 2, unknown or invalid QoS flow/sub-QoS flow/PDU set/DRB identifier, and/or the like.
[0302] In an example, as shown in FIG. 26 or in FIG. 27, BS1 may perform, based on the response message, data forwarding for the wireless device.
[0304] In an example embodiment, as shown in FIG. 29, a source base station (BS1) may send, to a target base station (BS2), request message requesting a handover of a wireless device, wherein the first request message indicates: a first data radio bearer (DRB) is associated with a first PDU set; a second DRB is associated with a second PDU set. The source base station may receive, from the target base station, a response message comprising at least a response message comprising at least one of: first data forwarding information for the first DRB associated with the first PDU set; second data forwarding information for the second DRB associated with the second PDU set. The source base station may perform data forwarding based on the received information above.
Therefore, clearly Xu has taught the source base station receives the handover response from the target base station, wherein the handover response indicating whether the proposed data forwarding of the PDU set is admitted/supported by the target base station (such as whether there are radio resources available) and in response to the proposed data forwarding of the PDU set been admitted/accepted, the source base station performs the data forwarding for the PDU set.
As such, Xu has taught the indicator of the PDU set handling (indication of how to forward the PDU set) and identification of the indicator for generation of the data to be forwarded.
On the other hand, Luo teaches on paragraphs [80, 136] as follows:
[0080] The PDU set related information can be provided from application layer as a new IE in the IP header, or extended IP header, or a new header between IP header and the content. It is assumed that UPF just forwards the IP packet with the PDU set related information. Alternatively, it is assumed that UPF shall copy the PDU set related information provided by the application server and paste the PDU set related information into a newly defined container in the extended GTP-U header, e.g., application-aware container, or PDU-set-aware container.
[0136] Another example based on the assumption that a new container (e.g., application-aware container, or PDU-set-aware container) will be defined for XR traffic, which will be inserted into the extended GTP-U header of N3/N9 interface. And the discard PDU set information IE can be added into the new container.
Therefore, clearly Luo has taught the generation of the information on the PDU set, and paste of the PDU set information into the PDU set information container. As such, Luo has taught using the PDU set information container for the transmission of the information on the PDU set.
Lastly, Leveno teaches pages 15-16 and 23-25 as follows:
(R)AN to AMF: N2 PDU Session Response (PDU Session ID, Cause, N2 SM information (PDU Session ID, AN Tunnel Info, List of accepted/rejected QFI(s), User Plane Enforcement Policy Notification, TL-Container, [indicator of supporting PDU set based QoS handling])).
The AN Tunnel Info corresponds to the Access Network address of the N3 tunnel corresponding to the PDU Session.
The (R)AN may reject the addition or modification of a QoS Flow, e.g. due to handling of the UE-Slice-MBR as described in clause 5.7.1.10 of TS 23.501 [2]. If the (R)AN rejects QFI(s) the SMF is responsible of updating the QoS rules and QoS Flow level QoS parameters associated to the rejected QoS Flow(s) in the UE accordingly.
The NG-RAN rejects the establishment of UP resources for the PDU Session when it cannot fulfil User Plane Security Enforcement information with a value of Required. The NG-RAN notifies the SMF when it cannot fulfil a User Plane Security Enforcement with a value of Preferred.
If the NG-RAN cannot establish redundant user plane for the PDU Session as indicated by the RSN parameter and PDU Session Pair ID, the NG-RAN takes the decision on whether to reject the establishment of RAN resources for the PDU Session based on local policies as described in TS 23.501 [2].
If interworking with TSN deployed in the transport network is supported and the NG-RAN supports AN-TL and received a TL-Container with a get-request from the SMF/CUC in step 12 (see clause 4.4.8 of TS 23.501 [2]), the NG-RAN/AN-TL includes a TL-Container with a get-response to the N2 SM information, as described in clause 5.28a.2 of TS 23.501 [2].
Upon receiving PDU set QoS parameters, NG-RAN includes the indicator of supporting PDU set based QoS handling in N2 SM information if it supports. Otherwise, no indicator is included.
AMF to SMF: Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request (SM Context ID, N2 SM information, Request Type).
The AMF forwards the N2 SM information received from (R)AN to the SMF.
If the list of rejected QFI(s) is included in N2 SM information, the SMF shall release the rejected QFI(s) associated QoS profiles.
If the N2 SM information indicates failure of user plane resource setup, the SMF shall reject the PDU session establishment by including a N1 SM container with a PDU Session Establishment Reject message (see clause 8.3.3 of TS 24.501 [25]) in the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response in step 17. Step 16 is skipped in this case and instead the SMF releases the N4 Session with UPF.
If the User Plane Enforcement Policy Notification in the N2 SM information indicates that no user plane resources could be established and the User Plane Enforcement Policy indicated "required" as described in clause 5.10.3 of TS 23.501 [2], the SMF shall reject the PDU session establishment by including a N1 SM container with a PDU Session Establishment Reject message (see clause 8.3.3 of TS 24.501 [25]) in the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response in step 17. Step 16 is skipped in this case.
If the N2 SM information includes a TL-Container with a get-response as described in clause 5.28a.2 of TS 23.501 [2], the SMF/CUC stores the get-response.
If the N2 SM information includes an indicator of supporting PDU set based handling, SMF configures PSA UPF to perform PDU set identification and marking for the QoS flow.
Target NG-RAN to AMF: N2 Path Switch Request (List of PDU Sessions To Be Switched with N2 SM Information, List of PDU Sessions that failed to be established with the failure cause given in the N2 SM information element, UE Location Information)
The Target NG-RAN sends an N2 Path Switch Request message to an AMF to inform that the UE has moved to a new target cell and provides a List Of PDU Sessions To Be Switched. AN Tunnel Info for each PDU Session to be switched is included in the N2 SM Information.
Upon receiving PDU set QoS parameters, the Target NG-RAN includes the indicator of supporting PDU set based QoS handling in N2 SM information if it supports. Otherwise, no indicator is included.
If source NG-RAN and target NG-RAN differ on supporting PDU set based QoS handling, SMF decides to activate/deactivate PDU set identification and marking at PSA UPF based on whether Target NG-RAN node supports PDU set based QoS handling or not.
NOTE 1: if no indicator of supporting PDU set based QoS handling provided by target NG-RAN, SMF initiates PDU session modification procedure to provide the PDU set QoS parameters (if exist) to NG-RAN.
Therefore, Leveno clearly teaches the target node transmits the response including the indicator information element for specifying whether the PDU set based handling is supported to a node, and when the PDU set based handling is supported, the node generates information related to the PDU set information. As such, Leveno has taught the condition for generating data to be forwarded, i.e. based on whether the second node supports the PDU set based handling.
In view of the foregoing, Xu reference has taught the condition for generating the data to be forwarded, wherein the condition is the second node supporting the PDU set based handling. As such, one skilled in the art would be motivated to simply substitute the indicator of Xu reference with the indicator information element to allow the teachings to be compatible with the wireless standard as specified by Leveno, and to simply substitute the data including PDU set information to be forwarded, of Xu reference, with the PDU set information container to allow the teachings to be compatible with the GTP-U wireless standard that defined for the XR traffic as specified by Luo.
Accordingly, the combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno as a whole, has taught “generating a data to be forwarded including the container, on the condition of identifying whether the second node supports a PDU set based handling”.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8 and 12, the Applicant further argued that “(2) The container of D2 (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0330876 to Luo) does not correspond to the data to be forwarded that is generated by the first node of Claim 1. D2 merely discloses that the UPF delivers PDU set information in a container within the extended GTP-U header of the N3/N9 interface ([0080], [0136]). The UPF is not the first node of Claim 1, which transmits a handover request and receives an acknowledge thereto, and no part of D2 discloses or suggests configuring the contents of the data to be forwarded differently depending on whether the counterpart node supports the handling. Applicants believe this to be hindsight” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, pages 7-8).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the instant case, the Applicant clearly attacked Luo reference (D2) individually to show that the Luo reference does not teach “configuring the contents of the data to be forwarded differently depending on whether the counterpart node supports the handling”, wherein the limitations are rejected by the combination of references (Xu, Luo and Leveno).
As demonstrated above, Xu has taught the PDU set information (data) to be forwarded is generated, based on whether the second node/counterpart node supports the PDU set based handling. As such, Xu has taught the contents of the data to be forwarded differently depending on whether the counterpart node supports the handling.
Therefore, Luo reference was not relied for the teachings of “configuring the contents of the data to be forwarded differently depending on whether the counterpart node supports the handling”. Luo reference was cited to show that it is known in the art to send the PDU set information as the PDU set information container.
Consequently, the modification of the Xu reference with the Luo reference is simply adjusting how the PDU set information been transmitted (does not change the content of the PDU set information), such as in the PDU set information container. Accordingly, the combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno as a whole, has taught “configuring the contents of the data to be forwarded differently depending on whether the counterpart node supports the handling”.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8 and 12, the Applicant further argued that “(3) The indicator of D3 (S2-2307177 to Lenovo et al.) is not included in a handover request acknowledge message received by the first node. In D3, the recipient of the indicator of supporting PDU set based QoS handling is consistently the core network. In the Xn based handover (4.9.1.2.2), the target NG-RAN includes the indicator in the N2 SM information of the N2 Path Switch Request and provides it to the AMF, and even where the indicator is included in a message designated as "Handover Request Acknowledge" in the N2 based handover (4.9.1.3.2, step 10), that message is transmitted by the T-RAN to the T-AMF, so that the recipient is the core network (AMF). In D3, in either case, the purpose of the indicator is for the SMF to determine whether to activate PDU set identification and marking at the PSA UPF. Accordingly, the indicator of D3 differs from the first node of Claim 1, which transmits a handover request and generates a data to be forwarded, and even if the references are combined, the indicator does not function as a condition upon which the first node identifies what the indicator indicates and generates a data to be forwarded including the container” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, page 8).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the instant case, the Applicant clearly attacked Leveno reference (D3) individually to show that the Leveno reference does not teach “indicator is not included in a handover request acknowledge message received by the first node”, wherein the limitations are rejected by the combination of references (Xu, Luo and Leveno).
As demonstrated above, Xu has taught that the indicator is included in the handover request acknowledge message received by the first node, wherein the first node is not part of core network, and in response to receiving the indicator, the first node generates the data to be forwarded based on the indicator.
As such, Leveno reference was not relied for the teachings of “the indicator is included in the handover request acknowledge message received by the first node”. Leveno reference was cited to show that it is known in the art to provide the indicator as the indicator information element as consistence with the wireless standard.
Therefore, the modification of the Xu reference with the Leveno reference is simply substitute the PDU set based handling indicator with the PDU set based handling indicator information element, which does not change the content of PDU set based handling indicator. Accordingly, the combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno as a whole, has taught “the indicator is included in a handover request acknowledge message received by the first node” and “the indicator as a condition upon which the first node identifies what the indicator indicates and generates a data to be forwarded including the container”.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8 and 12, the Applicant further argued that “(4) As to the effects of the invention, since Claim 1 generates a data to be forwarded including the container only where the support of the second node has been confirmed, unnecessary transmission of PDU set information to, and the processing burden on, a non-supporting node are avoided, and continuity of PDU set based QoS handling is ensured at a supporting node even after the handover. The references, which contain no feature relating the contents of the data to be forwarded to whether the counterpart node supports the handling, cannot achieve these effects.
Thus, D1, D2 and D3, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or render obvious the feature recited claims 1, 5, 8, and 12.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, page 8).
In response to applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above, since Xu has taught the content of the data to be forwarded is generated based on whether the counterpart node supports the handling. As such, the combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno, as a whole, discloses each and every feature cited in claims 1, 5, 8 and 12. Therefore, the claims 1, 5, 8 and 12 are not patentable.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 15, the Applicant argued that “Claims 4, 11, and 15 variously depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 12. Because the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the features presently recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 12, dependent claims 4, 11, and 15 are patentable for at least the reasons that claims 1, 8, and 12 are patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, page 9).
In response to applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above, since the applied references has taught the features presently recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 12. Therefore, the dependent claims 4, 11 and 15 are also NOT patentable for at least the reasons that claims 1, 8, and 12 are NOT patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein. Accordingly, the claims 4, 11, and 15 are rejected.
Regarding claims 3, 7, 10 and 14, the Applicant argued that “Claims 3, 7, 10, and 14 variously depend from independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 12. Because the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the features presently recited in independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 12, dependent claims 3, 7, 10, and 14 are patentable for at least the reasons that claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 are patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, page 9).
In response to applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above, since the applied references has taught the features presently recited in independent claims 1, 5, 8 and 12. Therefore, the dependent claims 3, 7, 10 and 14 are also NOT patentable for at least the reasons that claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 are NOT patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein. Accordingly, the claims 3, 7, 10 and 14 are rejected.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 09/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2, 6, 9 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment filed on 09/23/2026 (wherein the claims 2, 6, 9 and 13 are canceled). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2, 6, 9 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0260959 A1 to Xu et al. (hereafter refers as Xu) in view of US 2025/0330876 A1 to Luo et al. (hereafter refers as Luo) and further in view of S2-2307177 to Lenovo et al. (hereafter refers as Leveno).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Xu teaches a method performed by a first node in a wireless communication system (a method performed by a source BS in a wireless communication system, Fig. 24-29, provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 24-29) and a first node in a wireless communication system (the source BS in the wireless communication system, Fig. 24-29, provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 24-29), the first node comprising:
a transceiver (the source BS comprises the antennas and/or TX processing and RX processing, Fig. 15 and paragraphs [208-210], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [193-195] and Fig. 15); and
at least one processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to (and an processor coupled to the antennas and/or TX processing and RX processing, wherein the processor is configured to perform the method, Fig. 15 and paragraphs [208-210], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [193-195] and Fig. 15):
transmit, to a second node (transmit to a target base station, Fig. 24-29, provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 24-29), a handover request message (a handover request message, Fig. 24-29, provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 24-29) comprising first information on a protocol data unit (PDU) set associated with quality of service (QoS) parameters (comprising information related to PDU set(s), paragraphs [279, 303-304], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261, 285], which is associated with QoS parameters, paragraphs [271-273, 284-288], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [268, 270, 280, 290-292]), wherein the first information comprises PDU set QoS parameters information element (information related to PDU set(s), paragraphs [279, 303-304], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261, 285], which is associated with QoS parameters, paragraphs [271-273, 284-288], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [268, 270, 280, 290-292]),
receive, from the second node, a handover request acknowledge message (the source base station, i.e. BS1, receives a handover request response/acknowledge message from the target base station, i.e. BS2, paragraphs [292, 296, 298-299, 301, 317-319], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261-263, 285-286]) comprising second information indicating support of a PDU set based handling (wherein the handover request response/acknowledge message indicating whether the PDU set handling, i.e. transmitting PDU set, is supported by the target base station, paragraphs [293-297, 304, 313-314, 317], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [275-281, 283, 286, 299-302]), wherein the second information comprising a PDU set based handling indicator (wherein the handover request response/acknowledge message indicating whether the PDU set handling, i.e. transmitting PDU set, is supported by the target base station, paragraphs [293-297, 304, 313-314, 317], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [275-281, 283, 286, 299-302]),
identify whether the second information included in the handover request acknowledgment indicates the PDU set based handling is supported (determining whether to target base station is supporting a handling of the PDU set(s) based on the indication in the handover request response/acknowledgement message, paragraphs [293, 297, 301, 318-320], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [280-283, 299-301]), and
in case that the second information included in the handover request acknowledgment indicates the PDU set based handling is supported, generate a data to be forwarded including third information on the PDU set, wherein the third information comprises a PDU set information (the source base station generates a data to be forwarded based on the PDU set(s), wherein the data including the PDU set information/data, paragraphs [279, 303-304], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261, 285], based on the supporting information in the handover response message, paragraphs [301-302], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [283-284]).
However, Xu does not explicitly teach the PDU set information comprises PDU set information “container”.
Luo teaches generating a data to be forwarded including information on a PDU set, wherein the information comprises a PDU set information container (transmitting PDU set information in an PDU set information container in an GTP-U header, paragraphs [80, 136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of PDU set information container as taught by Luo, with the teachings of transmitting third information comprising PDU set information as taught by Xu, for a purpose of allowing the teachings to be compatibility with a wireless standard(s), by allowing the PDU set information to be transmitted as the PDU set information container (see Luo, paragraphs [80, 136]).
However, the combination of Xu and Luo does not explicitly teach the PDU set based handling indicator is a PDU set based handling “indicator information element”.
Lenovo teaches the second information comprises PDU set based handling indicator information element (target NG-RAN determines whether to support PDU set based QoS handling and transmits information comprising PDU set based handling indicator SM information, specifying whether the target NG-RAN supporting the PDU set based QoS handling, see pages 15, 16, 23-25, 33 and section 1b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of PDU set based handling indicator information element as taught by Lenovo, with the teachings of PDU set based handling as taught by combination of Xu and Luo, for a purpose of allowing the teachings to be compatibility with a wireless standard(s) (TS 23.502), by using the PDU set based handling indicator information element for the second information (see Luo, paragraphs [80, 136]).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Xu further teaches wherein the second information is transmitted by the second node to an access and mobility management function (AMF) (wherein the handover acknowledge/response message is transmitted by the target base station to the source base station, via an AMF, Fig. 27 and paragraph [292], provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 27 and paragraph [260]).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Xu teaches a method performed by a second node in a wireless communication system (a method performed by a target BS in a wireless communication system, Fig. 24-29, provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 24-29), and a second node in a wireless communication system (the target BS in the wireless communication system, Fig. 24-29, provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 24-29), the second node comprising:
a transceiver (comprising antennas and/or TX processing and RX processing, Fig. 15 and paragraphs [208-210], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [193-195] and Fig. 15);
and at least one processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to (and an processor coupled to the antennas and/or TX processing and RX processing, wherein the processor is configured to perform the method, Fig. 15 and paragraphs [208-210], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [193-195] and Fig. 15):
receive, from a first node, a handover request message (receive from a first base station/BS1, a handover request message, Fig. 24-29, provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 24-29) comprising first information on a protocol data unit (PDU) set associated with quality of service (QoS) parameters (comprising information related to PDU set(s), paragraphs [279, 303-304], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261, 285], which is associated with QoS parameters, paragraphs [271-273, 284-288], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [268, 270, 280, 290-292]), wherein the first information comprises PDU set QoS parameters information element (information related to PDU set(s), paragraphs [279, 303-304], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261, 285], which is associated with QoS parameters, paragraphs [271-273, 284-288], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [268, 270, 280, 290-292]); and
transmit, to the first node, a handover request acknowledge message (the target base station transmits, to the first base station/source base station, a handover request response/acknowledge message, paragraphs [292, 296, 298-299, 301, 317-319], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261-263, 285-286]), comprising second information indicating support of a PDU set based handling (wherein the handover request response/acknowledge message indicating whether the PDU set handling, i.e. transmitting PDU set, is supported by the target base station, paragraphs [293-297, 304, 313-314, 317], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [275-281, 283, 286, 299-302]), wherein the second information comprising a PDU set based handling indicator (wherein the handover request response/acknowledge message indicating whether the PDU set handling, i.e. transmitting PDU set, is supported by the target base station, paragraphs [293-297, 304, 313-314, 317], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [275-281, 283, 286, 299-302]),
wherein, in case that the second information included in the handover request acknowledgment indicates the PDU set based handling is supported, third information on the PDU set is included in a data to be forwarded by the first node, wherein the third information comprises a PDU set information (the source base station generates a data to be forwarded based on the PDU set(s), wherein the data including the PDU set information/data paragraphs [279, 303-304], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261, 285], based on the supporting information in the handover response message, paragraphs [301-302], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [283-284]).
However, Xu does not explicitly teach the PDU set information comprises PDU set information “container”.
Luo teaches the information on the PDU set is included in a data to be forwarded, the information comprises a PDU set information container (PDU set information in an PDU set information container in an GTP-U header, to be transmitted, paragraphs [80, 136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of PDU set information container as taught by Luo, with the teachings of third information comprising PDU set information as taught by Xu, for a purpose of allowing the teachings to be compatibility with a wireless standard(s), by allowing the PDU set information to be transmitted as the PDU set information container (see Luo, paragraphs [80, 136]).
However, the combination of Xu and Luo does not explicitly teach the PDU set based handling indicator is a PDU set based handling “indicator information element”.
Lenovo teaches the second information comprises PDU set based handling indicator information element (target NG-RAN determines whether to support PDU set based QoS handling and transmits information comprising PDU set based handling indicator SM information, specifying whether the target NG-RAN supporting the PDU set based QoS handling, see pages 15, 16, 23-25, 33 and section 1b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of PDU set based handling indicator information element as taught by Lenovo, with the teachings of PDU set based handling as taught by combination of Xu and Luo, for a purpose of allowing the teachings to be compatibility with a wireless standard(s) (TS 23.502), by using the PDU set based handling indicator information element for the second information (see Luo, paragraphs [80, 136]).
Regarding claim 15, Xu further teaches transmit, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), the second information (wherein the handover acknowledge/response message is transmitted by the target base station to the source base station, via an AMF, Fig. 27 and paragraph [292], provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 27 and paragraph [260]).
Claims 3, 7, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0260959 A1 to Xu et al. (hereafter refers as Xu) in view of US 2025/0330876 A1 to Luo et al. (hereafter refers as Luo) and further in view of S2-2307177 to Lenovo et al. (hereafter refers as Leveno) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2024/0015612 A1 to Velev et al. (hereafter refers as Velev).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno further teaches transmitting the data with the third information on the PDU set (the source base station forwarding the data with the PDU set(s), see Xu, paragraphs [279, 303-304], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [261, 285], based on the supporting information indicated in the handover response message, see Xu, paragraphs [301-302], provisional 63/422,306, paragraphs [283-284]).
However, the combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno does not explicitly teach the data with the third information on the PDU set is “transmitted to the second node”.
Velve teaches transmitting, to a second node, the data with the third information on the PDU set (in response to receiving handover response indicating supporting information related to PDU session(s), a source RAN node, forwards data with information on the PDU session to a target RAN node, paragraphs [84-88, 104-109, 111] and Fig. 2b, step 3, 3A-3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transmitting, to a second node, the data with the third information on the PDU set as taught by Velve, with the teachings of transmitting the data with the third information on the PDU set as taught by combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno, for a purpose of increase efficiency in the wireless communication by allowing the source base station/first node to begin handover the data to the second node by forwarding the data with the third information on the PDU set to the second node in response to the second information (see Velve, paragraphs [84-88, 104-109, 111] and Fig. 2b, step 3, 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 7, Xu further teaches transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), the second information (wherein the handover acknowledge/response message is transmitted by the target base station to the source base station, via an AMF, Fig. 27 and paragraph [292], provisional 63/422,306, Fig. 27 and paragraph [260]).
However, the combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno does not explicitly teach “receiving, from the first node,” the data with the third information on the PDU set.
Velve teaches receiving, from a first node, the data with the third information on the PDU set (in response to receiving handover response indicating supporting information related to PDU session(s), a source RAN node, forwards data with information on the PDU session to a target RAN node, paragraphs [84-88, 104-109, 111] and Fig. 2b, step 3, 3A-3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of receiving, from the first node, the data with the third information on the PDU set as taught by Velve, with the teachings of the data with the third information on the PDU set as taught by combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno, for a purpose of increase efficiency in the wireless communication by allowing the source base station/first node to begin handover the data to the second node by forwarding the data with the third information on the PDU set to the second node in response to the second information (see Velve, paragraphs [84-88, 104-109, 111] and Fig. 2b, step 3, 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno does not explicitly teach “receive, from the first node,” the data with the third information on the PDU set.
Velve teaches receive, from a first node, the data with the third information on the PDU set (in response to receiving handover response indicating supporting information related to PDU session(s), a source RAN node, forwards data with information on the PDU session to a target RAN node, paragraphs [84-88, 104-109, 111] and Fig. 2b, step 3, 3A-3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of receiving, from the first node, the data with the third information on the PDU set as taught by Velve, with the teachings of the data with the third information on the PDU set as taught by combination of Xu, Luo and Leveno, for a purpose of increase efficiency in the wireless communication by allowing the source base station/first node to begin handover the data to the second node by forwarding the data with the third information on the PDU set to the second node in response to the second information (see Velve, paragraphs [84-88, 104-109, 111] and Fig. 2b, step 3, 3A-3B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0392550 A1 discloses base station broadcast message including a N1 SM container comprising PDU set QoS parameter (see paragraphs [113, 133, 229, 247]).
US 2025/0358672 A1 discloses a source NG-RAN node transmits handover request message to a target NG-RAN, wherein the handover request message comprising a PDU set QoS parameters (paragraphs [112-114]) and the source NG-RAN node receives handover request acknowledge message from the target NG-RAN (paragraph [122]).
US 2026/0150151 A1 discloses a source base station transmits SN status transfer and data to a target base station in response to receiving a handover request response (Fig. 2 and paragraphs [74-81]), the source base station transmits a handover request, including PDU set associated with QoS parameters, from the target base station (paragraphs [74, 109, 322, 323, 327]) and the handover request response message specifying whether supporting the PDU set (paragraph [288]).
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 DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Ian N. Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 October 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights