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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 02/18/2025 havingclaims 1-20 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 11/07/2022 is a 371 of PCT/CN2020/090617 05/15/2020 are acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 11/07/2022 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted are/is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 11/07/2022 is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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 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.
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication US 20250133579 A1 WANG et al. (Hereinafter “WANG ").
As per claim 1, WANG teaches a method in a Distributed Unit, DU, of a network device, comprising: transmitting, to a Central Unit, CU, of the network device, a first message containing a request for resource coordination with another network device (para 0477], fig. 23, DU is transmitting, to a Central Unit a message for resource coordination with another network device ); and receiving, from the CU, a second message containing a response to the request from the other network device (para 0481], fig. 23receiving from CU a response as second message response to the request from the other network device).
As per claim 2, WANG teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first message is a next generation NodeB ‘gNB’-DU resource coordination request, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination response (para 0201],fig 23,the request and response message are first message is a next generation NodeB ‘gNB’-DU resource coordination request, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination response) .
As per claim 5, WANG teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the request is an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access ‘E-UTRA’-New Radio ‘NR’ cell resource coordination request, and the response is an E-UTRA-NR cell resource coordination response (para 0202], the network is Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access ‘E-UTRA’-New Radio ‘NR’ cell and cell resource coordination request, and the response is an E-UTRA-NR cell resource coordination response).
As per claim 6, WANG teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the other network device comprises an evolved NodeB for resource coordination with a next generation NodeB as the network device (para [0202], an evolved NodeB for resource coordination with a next generation NodeB as the network device)
As per claim 7, WANG teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first message contains a group identification and a cell identification indicating at least one cell involved in the resource coordination (para 0479], first message contains cell id information and group id information such as broadcast or mbms information).
As per claim 8, WANG teaches the method in a Central Unit, CU, of a network device, comprising: receiving, from a Distributed Unit, DU, of the network device, a first message containing a request for resource coordination with another network device ((para 0477], fig. 23, receiving from DU a first message containing a request for resource coordination with another network device); and transmitting, to the DU, a second message containing a response to the request from the other network device (para 0477], fig. 23, CU is sending a response to the request from the other network device).
As per claim 10, WANG teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first message is a next generation NodeB ‘gNB’-DU resource coordination request, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination response (para 0201],fig 23,the request and response message are first message is a next generation NodeB ‘gNB’-DU resource coordination request, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination response) .
As per claim 11, WANG teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first message is a next generation NodeB ‘gNB’-DU resource coordination response, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination request(para 0227], resource coordination response, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination request)..
As per claim 13, WANG teaches the method claim 8, wherein the request is an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access ‘E-UTRA’-New Radio ‘NR’ cell resource coordination request, and the response is an E-UTRA-NR cell resource coordination response(para 0202], the network is Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access ‘E-UTRA’-New Radio ‘NR’ cell and cell resource coordination request, and the response is an E-UTRA-NR cell resource coordination response)..
As per claim 14, WANG teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the other network device comprises an evolved NodeB for resource coordination with a next generation NodeB as the network device(para [0202], an evolved NodeB for resource coordination with a next generation NodeB as the network device).
As per claim 15, WANG teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first message contains a group identification and a cell identification indicating at least one cell involved in the resource coordination(para 0479], first message contains cell id information and group id information such as broadcast or mbms information)..
As per claim 16, WANG teaches a Distributed Unit, DU, comprising a communication interface, a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor whereby the DU is operative to perform the method according to claim 1 ((para 0477], fig. 23, instructions executable by the processor whereby the DU is operative to perform the method according to claim 1).
17. (canceled)
As per claim 18, WANG teaches a Central Unit, CU, comprising a communication interface, a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor whereby the CU is operative to perform the method according to claim 8 (para 0477], fig. 23, comprising instructions executable by the processor whereby the CU is operative to perform the method according to claim 8).
19. (canceled)
As per claim 20, WANG teaches a network device, comprising: a Distributed Unit, DU, comprising a communication interface, a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor whereby the DU is operative to perform operations comprising transmit, to a Central Unit, CU, of the network device, a first message containing a request for resource coordination with another network device ( (para 0477], fig. 23, DU is transmitting, to a Central Unit a message for resource coordination with another network device )); and receive, from the CU, a second message containing a response to the request from the other network device ( (para 0481], fig. 23receiving from CU a response as second message response to the request from the other network device).); and the CU comprising a communication interface, a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor whereby the CU is operative to perform operations comprising receive, from the DU, the first message containing a request for resource coordination with another network device ((para 0477], fig. 23, receiving from DU a first message containing a request for resource coordination with another network device);, and transmit, to the DU, the second message containing the response to the request from the other network device ((para 0477], fig. 23, CU is sending a response to the request from the other network device ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 3-4, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG further view of US PG Pub US 20200146083 A1 to Weiwei WANG et al (hereinafter Weiwei WANG).
As per claim 3, WANG teaches the method of claim 1, Weiwei WANG teaches wherein the first message is a next generation NodeB ‘gNB’-DU resource coordination response, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination request (para 0227], resource coordination response, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination request).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of WANG by wherein the first message is a next generation NodeB ‘gNB’-DU resource coordination response, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination request as suggested by Weiwei WANG, this modification would benefit WANG for enabling a efficient data transfer in a mobile communication network.
As per claim 4, WANG teaches the method of claim 3, Weiwei WANG teaches wherein the first message is transmitted in response to another gNB-DU resource coordination request from the CU (para 0227], step 720 is is transmitted in response to another gNB-DU resource coordination request from the CU).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied claim 3.
As per claim 9, WANG teaches the method of claim 8, Weiwei WANG further comprising: transmitting, to the other network device, a third message containing the request for resource coordination with the other network device, in response to receiving the first message; and receiving, from the other network device, a fourth message containing the response to the request, wherein the second message is transmitted in response to receiving the fourth message (para 0227], transmitting, to the other network device, a third message containing the request for resource coordination with the other network device, in response to receiving the first message; and receiving, from the other network device, a fourth message containing the response to the request, wherein the second message is transmitted in response to receiving the fourth message).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied claim 3.
As per claim 12, WANG teaches the method of claim 11, f Weiwei WANG urther comprising: transmitting, to the DU, another gNB-DU resource coordination request, wherein the first message is received as a response to the other gNB-DU resource coordination request ((para 0227], resource coordination response, and the second message is a gNB-DU resource coordination request).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied claim 3.
On page 2 of applicant's argument regarding claim 1, applicant argues that, "Applicant respectfully disagrees for at least two reasons. One, the DU-initiated message in Wang is not a request for coordination with another network device. Two, Wang does not disclose that the second message received by the DU from the CU contains a response from the other network device as recited in claim 1", Applicant's argument have been considered but are not persuasive. in para 0484-0489, fig. 23, setup request is request for coordination with another network device MCE, and based on the request MCE sends a response back to the CU where the contains the response back to the DU in response to the set up request.
Response to Arguments
On page 3 of applicant's argument regarding claim 1, applicant argues that, "Wang does not disclose that the second message received by the DU from the CU contains a response from the other network device. Claim 1 recites that the CU act as an intermediary: the DU sends a coordination request concerning another network device, and the CU forwards or otherwise obtains a response from that other device. Wang does not disclose this intermediary role for the CU, nor does it indicate that the CU’s response originates from another device. Paragraph [0481] describes a message from CU to DU but does not indicate that this message reflects communication with or coordination from another network device". Applicant's argument have been considered but are not persuasive. here para 0484-0489, fig. 23 and corresponding specification, DU is transmitting a central unit CU a first message such as set up request associated with another network MCE resource coordination information such as setup request, based on the request MCE sends a response back to the CU where the contains the response back to the DU in response to the set up request.
On page 4 of applicant's argument regarding claim 8, applicant argues that, "Applicant respectfully disagrees. Specifically, claim 8 recites that the CU receive a message from the DU that contains a request for resource coordination with another network device, and then transmit a second message back to the DU that contains a response from the other network device. Although paragraph [0477] of Wang discloses receiving a message from the DU, Wang does not disclose or suggest that this message pertains to coordination with another network device. Nor does Wang disclose that the CU transmits a response based on communication with another network device. Instead, the CU may determine the response internally, without forwarding the request or obtaining input from another gNB or eNB". Applicant's argument have been considered but are not persuasive. in para 0484-0489, fig. 23,CU is receiving from the DU a setup request which is message for coordination such that broadcast information can be transmitted to the DU from , so the based on setup request and response from DU to CU through another network MCE its coordinated action for the communication from UE to the network.
On page 3 of applicant's argument regarding claim 1, applicant argues that, "In particular, Wang does not teach or suggest that the DU initiates a request for coordination with another network device, nor that the CU provides a response originating from that other network device. Accordingly, claim 20 is not anticipated or rendered obvious by Wang. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20".Applicant respectfully disagrees for at least two reasons. One, the DU-initiated message in Wang is not a request for coordination with another network device. Two, Wang does not disclose that the second message received by the DU from the CU contains a response from the other network device as recited in claim 1", Applicant's argument have been considered but are not persuasive. in para 0484-0489, fig. 23, setup request is request for coordination with another network device MCE, and based on the request MCE sends a response back to the CU where the contains the response back to the DU in response to the set up request.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20200145967 A1; US Patent Publication US 20200029390 A1, US Patent Publication US 20230209555 A1
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights