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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: (1) It is longer than 150 words (2) The 1st sentence uses the phrase “There are provided..”, which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 41 is dependent on claim 38. It appears claim 41 should depend on claim 40, which Examiner has assumed below. Appropriate correction is required.
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 28, 38, 40, 48 – 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirotkin et al. (US 20210176802 A1; which has been provided in the International Search Report) in view of Vaidya et al. (US 20190098624 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Sirotkin discloses a method for supporting processing in a radio access network of a mobile communication system (Title; Abstract; Fig. 5 shows mobile communication system), comprising:
obtaining a configuration of mobility and data forwarding from an apparatus supporting control plane processing (Fig. 3, operation 6, 338: [0021] discloses data forwarding and configuration),
initiating data forwarding towards an apparatus supporting at least one target cell in accordance with the configuration (Fig. 3, step 340; [0021] discloses “provide an F1-U frame at operation 340 including those data forwarding TNL addresses provided from the target gNB-CU-UP 332. Once the source gNB-CU-UP 316 receives this F1-U frame including data forwarding tunnel info, the source gNB-CU-UP 316 can know that HO is going on and decide when to stop DL delivery (or may immediately freeze DL delivery if such F1-U frame is DDDS feedback”),
and notifying an apparatus supporting user plane processing of initiation of data forwarding, wherein the at least one target cell is identified ([0021] discloses “…and provide an F1-U frame at operation 340 including those data forwarding TNL addresses provided from the target gNB-CU-UP 332…”).
Sirotkin does not explicitly state lower-layer processing, lower-layer mobility, higher-layer control plane processing and higher-layer user plane processing.
However, these are standard terms in 5G networks and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, in the same field of endeavor, Vaidya discloses lower-layer and higher-layer processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use lower-layer and higher-layer processing, as disclosed by Vaidya, in the system of Sirotkin because having different layers for processing helps break down tasks into smaller tasks that can be performed by different entities.
Regarding claim 38, Sirotkin discloses the data forwarding is initiated based on measurements, particularly Layer 1 measurements, from a user equipment ([0067] discloses use of Layer 1; [0021] discloses “On the other hand, some impacts can be necessary on the F1 AP UE Context Modification Request message to transport data forwarding tunneling info associated with an admitted DRB or PDU session toward gNB-DU,…” ).
Lower-layer analyzed as in claim 28.
Claim 40 is similarly analyzed as claim 28.
Regarding claim 48, Sirotkin discloses a computer program product comprising computer program code which, when the computer program code is executed on a computer, is configured to cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 28 (Fig. 6, elements 604E, 604G; [0045]).
Claim 49 is similarly analyzed as claim 48.
Claim 50 is similarly analyzed as claim 28, with claim 50 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29 – 37, 39, 41 – 47, 51 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.
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 data forwarding in lower-layer mobility:
Shan et al. (US 11871291 B2) discloses Data Forwarding Tunnel Establishment Between Two User Plane Functions in Fifth Generation.
Xu et al. (US 12439297 B2) discloses Method and Device for Supporting Handover.
Venkata et al. (US 20250016633 A1) discloses 5G New Radio Mobility Enhancements.
Bae (US 20210227428 A1) discloses a Method for Supporting Data Forwarding During Conditional Handover and Dual Stack Protocol Handover in Next-Generation Mobile Communication System.
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