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 .
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada et al. (Patent No: US 2021/0400549 A1), hereinafter, Awada, in view of LIANG et al. (Patent No: US 2026/0019898 A1), hereinafter, LIANG.
Regarding Claim 1, Awada teaches,
A method, comprising: receiving, by a source network device, measurement data associated with a user equipment (UE) in a network; -Paragraph [0072] ([0072] recites, “According to an example embodiment, the source network apparatus 10 receives, from the UE 30, measurement reports comprising a signal strength of a signal transmitted by the source network apparatus 10 …….”)
generating, by the source network device, handover conditions for handing over the UE to a target network device in the network; -Paragraph [0064] ([0064] recites, “Conditional HO (CHO) is a procedure that improves the robustness of the HO by de-coupling an HO preparation phase from an HO execution phase, as illustrated in FIG. 2. In the CHO preparation phase (phase 1), a source BS prepares early for a UE at least one target BS such that the UE can still receive successfully the Handover Command. For instance, a CHO add event in FIG. 2 is triggered when the signal of the target BS is Q dB lower than that of the source BS. Unlike normal HO, the HO command contains a condition on when to detach from source BS and start the access to the prepared target cell….”)
generating, by the source network device, a handover request based on the measurement data satisfying the handover conditions; -Fig. 2, 3(S201); (Fig. 2, 3 shows source network device (source BS) sends handover request to target network device (target BS))
providing, by the source network device, the handover request to initiate handover to the target network device; -Fig. 2; Paragraph [0065]([0065] recites, “After receiving the HO command from the source BS, the UE evaluates continuously the configured condition. If the configured condition expires, the UE detaches from the source BS and performs access to the target BS. “)
applying, by the source network device, a targeted configuration to the UE before the handover of the UE to the target network device; - Fig. 2; Paragraph [0064, 0065] (Fig. 2 shows with the handover command to the UE from the source BS is target configuration (prepared cell list). ([0064-0065] recites, “the HO command contains a condition on when to detach from source BS and start the access to the prepared target cell, …..
After receiving the HO command from the source BS, the UE evaluates continuously the configured condition. If the configured condition expires, the UE detaches from the source BS and performs access to the target BS.”)
enabling, by the source network device, downlink synchronization and timing advance acquisition with the target network device before the handover of the UE to the target network device; -Fig. 4 (Steps 8 to 10); Paragraph [0098] (Fig. 4, step 8 shows synchronization, step 9 shows timing advance acquisition with the target network device before the handover to the target network device. [0098] recites, “In steps 8 to 10 of FIG. 4, the UE performs access to the target cell (target eNB) while receiving/transmitting PDCP PDUs from/to the source BS.”)
Although implicit and easily understandable by an ordinary person with the skill in the art, however, Awada does not explicitly teach,
and receiving, by the source network device, a handover success message from the target network device following completion of the handover.
However, in an analogous invention, LIANG teaches,
and receiving, by the source network device, a handover success message from the target network device following completion of the handover. -Paragraph [0197] ([0197] recites, “A target base station 5 sends the handover success message to the source base station 5 to inform that the UE 3 has successfully accessed the target cell…..”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “receiving, by the source network device, a handover success message from the target network device following completion of the handover.” of LIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness [0201].
Regarding Claim 2, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 1, wherein the handover conditions include configurations for downlink synchronization, uplink synchronization, and timing advance acquisition for the target network device.
However, in an analogous invention LIANG teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the handover conditions include configurations for downlink synchronization, uplink synchronization, and timing advance acquisition for the target network device. -Paragraph [0103, 0213-0220 ] ([0103] recites, “ A conditional handover (CHO) is a handover that is executed by the UE when one or more handover execution conditions are met. The UE may start evaluating one or more execution conditions upon receiving a CHO configuration, and may stop evaluating the one or more execution conditions once a handover is executed.” [0213-0220] recites, “In step 2, RRC Reconfiguration (handover preparation) is performed. In step 3, DL Synchronization is performed…… In step 6, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for handover to the target cell (which may include a target cell index, beam Index or TCI state) is transmitted from the source DU 50a to the UE 3. Step 7 comprises UL Synchronization (which may include transmission of a delta timing advance (deltaTA) described below), and an optional RACH procedure.” All parameters required for the DL/UL synchronization and timing advance acquisition are part of the CHO configuration.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “the handover conditions include configurations for downlink synchronization, uplink synchronization, and timing advance acquisition for the target network device.” of LIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness [0201].
Regarding Claim 3, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Awada further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the handover request includes an identifier of the target network device and enables handover. -Fig. 2, 3; Paragraph [0073-0075] ([0073-0075] recites, “Referring to FIG. 3, in S201 the target network apparatus 20 receives a handover request from the source network apparatus 10 providing access for the UE 30 to the communication network. Upon accepting the handover request in S202, in S203 the target network apparatus 20 transmits, to the source network apparatus 10, a handover acknowledgment message. According to an example implementation, the target network apparatus specifies the detach condition on when the UE 30 is to detach from the source network apparatus 10 after having accessed the target network apparatus 20 and received user plane data packets from the target network apparatus 20, and forwards the detach condition to the source network apparatus 10 in the handover acknowledgment message. In S204, the target network apparatus 20 provides access for the UE 30 to the communication network, and exchanges user plane data packets with the UE 30 as illustrated in S205, S206.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 1, wherein the targeted configuration is derived from Layer 1 and Layer 3 measurements specific to the target network device.
However, in an analogous invention LIANG teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the targeted configuration is derived from Layer 1 and Layer 3 measurements specific to the target network device. -Fig. 11-14; Paragraph [0124, 0243, 0268] ([0124] recites, “obtaining layer 3, L3, reference signal received power, RSRP, measurements; and determining, based on the RSRP measurements, whether to transmit the measurement indication including an indication that periodic L1 measurements for inter-cell mobility are to be performed by the UE.” [0243] recites, “Periodic reporting by the UE (e.g. as part of one of the methods illustrated in FIGS. 11 to 14) is supported for both L3 and L1 measurements.” [0268] recites, “The base station 5 may configure any suitable parameter of the measurement filtering to be used at the UE 3. “ Fig. 11 (step 5) shows determination of whether HO condition is met from the L1/L3 measurements as configured.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “the targeted configuration is derived from Layer 1 and Layer 3 measurements specific to the target network device.” of LIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness [0201].
Regarding Claim 5, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 1, wherein the handover success message confirms application of the targeted configuration to the UE and initiates a transfer of data associated with the UE to the target network device.
However, in an analogous invention LIANG teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the handover success message confirms application of the targeted configuration to the UE and initiates a transfer of data associated with the UE to the target network device. -Paragraph [0197] ([0197] recites, “A target base station 5 sends the handover success message to the source base station 5 to inform that the UE 3 has successfully accessed the target cell.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “handover success message confirms application of the targeted configuration to the UE and initiates a transfer of data associated with the UE to the target network device.” of LIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness [0201].
Regarding Claim 6, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 1, wherein the measurement data associated with the UE includes Layer 3 measurement data.
However, in an analogous invention LIANG teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the measurement data associated with the UE includes Layer 3 measurement data. -Paragraph [0102]([0102] recites, “When UE moves from one cell to another, a serving cell may need to be changed. Serving cell change may be triggered by layer 3 (L3) measurements and can be achieved using radio resource control (RRC) signalling.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “the measurement data associated with the UE includes Layer 3 measurement data.” of LIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness [0201].
Claim 8 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Awada further teaches,
A source network device, comprising: one or more processors configured to: -Fig. 7; Paragraph [0046] (Fig. 7 shows schematic diagram for implementable of the embodiments which includes processor, memory and interfaces.)
Regarding Claim 9, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 8.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the handover conditions include downlink transmission channel information state activation for the target network device.
However, in an analogous invention LIANG teaches,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the handover conditions include downlink transmission channel information state activation for the target network device. -Paragraph [0208] ([0208] recites, “UE 3 performs L1 measurements and reports for reference signals (e.g. SSB or CSI-RS illustrated in FIG. 10) corresponding to inter-cell beams, based on configurations from the network. Based on L1 measurement reports, the telecommunication system 1 may activate some transmission configuration information (TCI) states quasi co-located (QCL-ed) with cells whose physical cell ID (PCI) is different from serving cell. The UE 3 performs synchronisation (DL and optionally UL) for these cells.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “handover conditions include downlink transmission channel information state activation for the target network device.” of LIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness [0201].
Regarding Claim 10, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 8.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the handover conditions include uplink timing advance acquisition for the target network device and to enable the UE to align transmission with a timing of the target network device.
However, in an analogous invention, LIANG teaches,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the handover conditions include uplink timing advance acquisition for the target network device and to enable the UE to align transmission with a timing of the target network device. -Paragraph [0213-0220]([0213-0220] recites, “In step 2, RRC Reconfiguration (handover preparation) is performed. In step 3, DL Synchronization is performed…… In step 6, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for handover to the target cell (which may include a target cell index, beam Index or TCI state) is transmitted from the source DU 50a to the UE 3. Step 7 comprises UL Synchronization (which may include transmission of a delta timing advance (deltaTA) described below), and an optional RACH procedure.” All parameters required for the DL/UL synchronization and timing advance acquisition are part of the CHO configuration.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “handover conditions include uplink timing advance acquisition for the target network device and to enable the UE to align transmission with a timing of the target network device.” of LIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness [0201].
Regarding Claim 11, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 8.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: release resources associated with the UE based on receiving the handover success message.
However, in an analogous invention LIANG teaches,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: release resources associated with the UE based on receiving the handover success message. -Paragraph [0192, 0197] ([0197] recites, “A target base station 5 sends the handover success message to the source base station 5 to inform that the UE 3 has successfully accessed the target cell. “ [0192] recites, “The release of the resources at the source base station during the conditional handover completion phase is triggered by the target base station 5.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “release resources associated with the UE based on receiving the handover success message.” of LIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness [0201].
Regarding Claim 14, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 8.
Awada further teaches,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein each of the source network device and the target network device is a base station. -Paragraph [0049] ([0049] recites, “FIG. 1 shows one exemplary implementation for an enhanced make-before-break procedure. FIG. 1 illustrates communication between UE, source BS (e.g. gNB, eNB) as a network apparatus for providing access for the UE to a communication network (e.g. NR, LTE), a target BS as a network apparatus for providing access for the UE to the communication network, MME/AMF and Serving Gateway/UPF(s).”)
Claim 15 is the apparatus claim corresponding to Claim 1 combined with claim 11. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 1 and 11 above which have been rejected. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1 and 11.
Awada further teaches,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: -Claim 62 (recites, “An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer instructions, when executed by the at least one processor…”)
Claim 16 is the apparatus claim corresponding to Claim 2. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 2 above which has been rejected. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim 17 is the apparatus claim corresponding to Claim 5. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 5 above which has been rejected. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Claim 19 is essentially the same as Claim 10. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 10 above which is rejected. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 10.
Claims 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada in view of LIANG and further in view of Kangude et al. (Patent No: US 2008/0267131 A1), hereinafter, Kangude.
Regarding Claim 7, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 1, wherein providing the handover request to initiate handover to the target network device comprises: providing, with the handover request, synchronization signals and a timing configuration for the target network device.
However, in an analogous invention Kangude teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein providing the handover request to initiate handover to the target network device comprises: providing, with the handover request, synchronization signals and a timing configuration for the target network device. -Claim 1 (recites, “ the source base station simultaneously communicating with the user equipment and the target base station a handover request of the user equipment to the target base station and communications parameters for synchronization of the user equipment and the target base station; the user equipment transmitting a synchronization signal to the target base station using the communications parameters;…. following receipt of said synchronization signal, the target base station estimating the user equipment UL timing and deriving a timing adjustment (TA) command; following receipt of both said synchronization signal and said handover request, the target base station determining communications parameters for handover confirmation of the user equipment to the target base;)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “providing, with the handover request, synchronization signals and a timing configuration for the target network device” of Kangude. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve even better system spectral efficiency [0005].
Claim 18 is the apparatus claim corresponding to Claim 7. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 7 above which has been rejected. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Claims 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada in view of LIANG and further in view of Release 17 (3GPP TS 38.300 version 17.1.0 Release 17), hereinafter, Release 17.
Regarding Claim 12, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 8.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cancel handover processes with other target network devices based on receiving the handover success message.
However, Release 17 teaches,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cancel handover processes with other target network devices based on receiving the handover success message. -Figure 9.2.3.4.2-1 (8c); section 9.2.3.4.2 (page 89) (Fig. shows the cancel handover process with other target network devices after handover success message received at the source network device. Section 9.2.3.4.2 recites, “The source gNB sends the HANDOVER CANCEL message toward the other signalling connections or other candidate target gNBs, if any, to cancel CHO for the UE.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “cancel handover processes with other target network devices based on receiving the handover success message.” of Release 17. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to conserve resources.
Regarding Claim 13, Awada and LIANG teach the limitations of Claim 8.
Although implicit, Awada does not explicitly mention,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide a status transfer message to the target network device for preemptive data forwarding to the UE.
However, Release 17 teaches,
The source network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide a status transfer message to the target network device for preemptive data forwarding to the UE. -Figure 9.2.3.4.2-1 (8b); section 9.2.3.4.2 (page 89) (Fig. shows SN STATUS TRANSFER (8b) to target network entity after HANDOVER SUCCESS message is received. Section 9.2.3.4.2 recites, “The target gNB sends the HANDOVER SUCCESS message to the source gNB to inform that the UE has successfully accessed the target cell. In return, the source gNB sends the SN STATUS TRANSFER message following the principles described in step 7 of Intra-AMF/UPF Handover in clause 9.2.3.2.1.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MOBILITY ROBUSTNESS AND HANDLING FOR ENHANCED HANDOVER” proposed by Awada to include the concept of “provide a status transfer message to the target network device for preemptive data forwarding to the UE” of Release 17. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make time efficient handover process.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 12. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 12 above which is rejected. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights