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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 10/16/2025 for response of the office action mailed on 07/16/2025. Independent Claims 19, 28 and 31 and dependent Claims 23-25 are amended. Claims 1-18, 21, 26-27 and 29-30 are canceled. Claims 19, 22-25, 28 and 31 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and Claims 19-25, 28, and 31 have overcome each and every objection set forth in the office action mailed 07/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent Claims 19, 28 and 31 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 19-20, 24-25, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FUJISHIRO (US 20220174564 A1) (disclosed in the IDS).
Regarding Claim 19, FUJISHIRO teaches [a] relay apparatus (FUJISHIRO, FIG. 1, FIG. 3, ¶0040, IAB node 300, FIG. 3, 300-1; FIG. 7, IAB node 300, /”relay apparatus”) comprising:
one or more processors (¶0043, IAB node 300 / relay apparatus includes at least one processor); and
one or more memories that store a computer-readable instruction (FUJISHIRO, ¶0043 [and] includes at least one memory) for causing, when executed by the one or more processors, the relay apparatus to:
receive, from a first base station apparatus connected to the relay apparatus, first control information for a first handover of the relay apparatus (FUJISHIRO, FIG. 6, FIG. 7, ¶0066 at S23, IAB node 300 / relay apparatus receives a [second] handover (HO) command/”first control information”, from the first donor apparatus 200S / “a first base station”, indicating handover of the IAB node / i.e., a “first handover”) and second control information for a second handover of a communication apparatus connected to the first base station apparatus via the relay apparatus (FUJISHIRO, FIG. 6, FIG. 7 (at S20), ¶0063, the IAB node 300 receives a [first] handover command/UE HO Command / “second control information”, from the first donor apparatus 200S / “the first base station”, indicating a handover of the UE 100 / a “communication apparatus” under the IAB node 300, i.e. “a second handover”) in a case where the first handover is performed from the first base station apparatus to a second base station apparatus (FUJISHIRO, FIG. 6, ¶0056, handover of an IAB node 300 is performed from a first donor apparatus 200S to a second donor apparatus 200T), execute the first handover to the second base station apparatus based on the first control information (FUJISHIRO, FIG. 7, ¶0066, the IAB handover is based on the [second] handover command / “first control information” ); and
transmit the second control information to the communication apparatus (FUJISHIRO, ¶0064- [after first handover is executed], the IAB node 300 / relay apparatus transmits [buffered] UE HO command / “second control information” to the UE / communication apparatus; see also FIG. 7, ¶0100 at S27-S29), wherein the second control information indicates that the communication apparatus is not required to perform random access processing with the second base station apparatus (FUJISHIRO, ¶0089-0090, the UE HO command / “second control information” may contain a UE SRB Suspend message, an RRC Reconfiguration message causing suspension of the transfer of the handover to the UE ).
Regarding Claim 20, FUJISHIRO teaches claim 19.
FUJISHIRO further teaches the first control information indicates that the relay apparatus requires random access processing with the second base station apparatus (FUJISHIRO, FIG. 7 at S24, ¶0097 in response to receiving the second handover command / “first control information”, the MT of the IAB node 300 performs Random Access to the DU of the second donor apparatus 200T / “the second base station apparatus”).
Regarding Claim 24, FUJISHIRO teaches claim 19.
FUJISHIRO further teaches the first control information and the second control information are Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration messages (FUJISHIRO, ¶0063 the first handover command/ “second control information” and ¶0066, the second handover command / “first control information” may be a RRC Reconfiguration).
Regarding Claim 25, FUJISHIRO teaches claim 19.
FUJISHIRO further teaches the second control information for one or more communication apparatuses (FUJISHIRO, FIG 1, 100-1, 100-2, 100-3; FIG. 6, FIG. 7, UE 100-a; 100-b, 100-c, / etc.) connected to the first base station apparatus via the relay apparatus is multiplexed in an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message, which is received by the relay apparatus (FUJISHIRO, ¶0076, In the IAB node 300 receiving the UE SRB Resume message, the RRC layer of the MT or the F1 application protocol (F1 AP) of the DU may provide a resume indication to the BAP layer. In this case, the BAP layer resumes the SRB or RRC message transmission and transfers the RRC message buffered to the UE 100).
Regarding Claim 28, the claims disclose similar features of Claim 19 and is rejected based on the same rationale of Claim 19 in method form (FUJISHIRO, FIG. 7 disclosed throughout, control method executed by an IAB node, 300 / a “relay apparatus”).
Regarding Claim 31, the claims disclose similar features of Claim 19 and is rejected based on the same rationale of Claim 19 (FUJISHIRO, ¶0043; ¶0046; ¶0108, a program for causing the computer to execute the processing described, i.e. “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” that stores a program for causing a computer included in a relay apparatus).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 22- 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJISHIRO in view of ISHII (US 20230089657 A1) and Yuan et al. (US 20210013959 A1), hereinafter Yuan.
Regarding Claim 22, FUJISHIRO teaches claim 19.
FUJISHIRO further teaches the relay apparatus generates a first response message to the first control information (the IAB node 300/ relay apparatus ends the random access to the second donor apparatus 200T, and transmits, to the CU of the second donor apparatus 200T, the RRC Reconfiguration Complete message/ “a first response message” indicating the end of handover).
FUJISHIRO does not explicitly teach [the relay apparatus] receives a second response message to the second control information, from the communication apparatus, and multiplexes the first response message and the second response message, and transmits the multiplexed messages to the second base station apparatus. (See also ISHII FIG. 15; FIG. 20; FIG. 46C, in response to RRCReconfiguration information (at 46C-4)/”first control information”, the Relay Node A, 24A/”relay apparatus” generates RRCReconfigurationComplete message, a “first response message”; see also ¶0288, following reception of HANDOVER REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGE of act 46C-2, as act 46C-4 donor IAB node 22-1 may send an RRCReconfiguration message to IAB-node 24A/”relay apparatus”),
However, in the analogous art, ISHII explicitly discloses [the relay apparatus] receives a second response message to the second control information, from the communication apparatus, . . . and transmits the [multiplexed] messages to the second base station apparatus (ISHII, FIG. 15, ¶0154; Act 15-10 comprises the child node 30,/”communication apparatus” sending a RRCReconfigurationComplete message (“a second response message”) to the donor of the target cell . . (i.e. the “second base station apparatus”), via Node B=IAB-node 24B (see also FIG. 20A, ¶0173).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine FUJISHIRO’s relay apparatus and method executed by a relay apparatus with ISHII’s radio architecture and operation of wireless relay networks. The motivation would be to improves basic function of a radio access network, e.g., methods and procedures to deal with problematic conditions on a backhaul link, such as radio link failure (RLF). [ISHII, ¶0302].
FUJISHIRO does not explicitly teach the relay apparatus multiplexes the first response message and second response message.
However, in the analogous art, Yuan explicitly discloses the relay apparatus multiplexes the first response message and second response message (Yuan, ¶0161, the first relay node/”relay apparatus” combines the RRC reconfiguration complete messages (“response messages”) of all the child nodes into one message (interpreted to correspond to “multiplexes the response messages”),and sends the message to the donor node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine FUJISHIRO’s relay apparatus and method executed by a relay apparatus, and ISHII’s radio architecture and operation of wireless relay networks with Yuan’s apparatus and method for sending a synchronization signal by a relay node in a wireless communication system. The motivation would be to optimize deployment of the relay node in the network. [Yuan, ¶0081].
Regarding Claim 23, FUJISHIRO, ISHII and Yuan teach claim 22.
FUJISHIRO further teaches the first response message and the second response message are Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration Complete messages (FUJISHIRO, FIG. 7, at S25 first response message and S33-S35 second response messages are RRC Reconfiguration Complete messages).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FUJISHIRO et al. (US 20180332507 A1): Abstract; ¶0005, [t]he handover command includes a notification indicating omitting a random-access procedure during the handover [and]. . . [t]he controller, UE omits, in response to the notification, the random-access procedure during the handover; examiner interprets the notification to omit RA procedure to correspond to “indicate not required to perform”.
FUJISHIRO et al. (US 20200389890 A1): Abstract; FIG.12; FIG. 13; ¶0037, when the handover to the target base station is determined at the donor base station, in the step A, the donor base station may transmit the information indicating the load state of the relay station, together with the handover request.
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 TRACY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7694. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/TRACY L WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465