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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 2020/0252842 A1) in view of Agiwal (US 2022/0022266).
As to claim 1, Hsieh teaches a method, implemented by a central unit (CU) in a first radio access network (RAN) node communicating with a distributed unit (DU) in the first RAN node, for managing user equipment (UE) configuration (see abstract), the method comprising:
transmitting, from the CU to a UE via the DU configuration parameters (Figs 4 and 5, 0009, 0020-0021); and
transmitting, from the CU to a second RAN node, handover preparation information to facilitate a handover of the UE from the first RAN node to the second RAN node (0047-0053), including:
omitting the configuration parameters from the handover preparation information, and including the other configuration parameters in the handover preparation information (0009, 0020-0021, 0072).
Hsieh discloses a disaggregated base station architecture including a gNB-CU coupled to one or more gNB-DUs, and teaches management of UE cell group configuration through CU-to-DU and CU-to-UE signaling. Hsieh further discloses transmitting HandoverPreparationInfo in CU-to-DU RRC information to control whether the UE should perform reconfiguration with sync (see for example [0047]–[0054], [0057]–[0058]).
However, Hsieh does not expressly disclose SDT configuration parameters as a distinct class of configuration information separate from non-SDT parameters. Agiwal remedies this deficiency by expressly teaching small data transmission (SDT) in RRC_INACTIVE state, including network-signaled SDT configuration such as SDT RACH configuration, SDT-specific parameters, and separate non-SDT RACH configuration (see Agiwal fig 8, [0124], [0147]–[0154], [0188]–[0199], [0213]–[0232], [0259]–[0270]. Agiwal thus teaches the SDT/non-SDT configuration distinction that is absent from Hsieh.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hsieh’s CU/DU handover-preparation framework with Agiwal’s SDT-specific configuration teachings in order to centrally manage both SDT and non-SDT behavior within a disaggregated RAN. In particular, the skilled artisan would have recognized that, when preparing for handover, the CU could selectively omit SDT-related configuration from the handover preparation information while including non-SDT configuration, so that the target node receives only the configuration relevant to continued operation at that stage. This is a predictable use of known configuration signaling techniques to support different operational modes of the UE.
As to claim 2, Hsieh and Agiwal teach the method of claim 1. Hsieh further teaches configuring, at the CU, the SDT configuration parameters for the UE (see abstract, 0007-0011; wherein the SDT and non-SDT is taught in Agiwal as described in the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 4, Hsieh and Agiwal teach the method of claim 1. Hsieh further teaches wherein: the DU of the first RAN node is a first DU of the first RAN node, and the second RAN node is a second DU of the first RAN node (0032, 0034, 0051-0058).
As to claim 5, Hsieh and Agiwal teach the method of claim 4, wherein Agiwal further teaches the non-SDT configuration parameters are first non-SDT configuration parameters, the method further comprising: receiving, from the second DU, second non-SDT configuration parameters for the UE ([0053]–[0054], [0057]–[0058] wherein the SDT and non-SDT is taught in Agiwal as described in the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 6, Hsieh and Agiwal teach the method of claim 5, the method further comprising: responsive to the receiving of the second non-SDT configuration parameters, transmitting, to the UE via the first DU, the second non-SDT configuration parameters ([0041]–[0042], [0045], [0053]–[0054] wherein the SDT and non-SDT is taught in Agiwal as described in the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 7, Hsieh and Agiwal teach the method of claim 1, wherein Agiwal further teaches the transmitting of the SDT configuration parameters and the non-SDT configuration parameters includes: transmitting, to the UE via the DU, the SDT configuration parameters in a release message of a protocol associated with controlling radio resources; wherein the transmitting of the handover preparation information occurs after the transmitting of the SDT configuration parameters in the release message (0125], [0147]–[0148], [0166]–[0179], [0219]–[0232], [0326], [0365]–[0370]).
As to claim 8, Hsieh and Agiwal teach the method of claim 7, Agiwal further teaches wherein the transmitting of the SDT configuration parameters and the non-SDT configuration parameters further includes: causing the UE to enter a connected state; and transmitting, to the UE via the DU, the non-SDT configuration parameters in a reconfiguration message of a protocol associated with controlling radio resources ([0218]–[0232], [0268]–[0270], [0323]–[0326]).
As to claim 9, Hsieh and Agiwal teach the method of claim 1. Hsieh further teaches wherein transmitting the handover preparation information includes transmitting a HandoverPreparationMessage message ([0047]–[0054); this is a known message in standards but applicant should claim the standards being used in the claims for standards specific message types).
Claims 10-16 and 18-20 contain similar subject matter and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asad M Nawaz whose telephone number is (571)272-3988. The examiner can normally be reached 8:15-4:45 M-F.
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, Deborah Reynolds. 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.
ASAD M. NAWAZ
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2468
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights