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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to amendment filed on June 17, 2026. Claims 1-10 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishii (WO 2020/059633).
Regarding claim 7, Ishii discloses a communication apparatus (fig. 8 [UE/IAB Child node]), wherein the communication apparatus comprises a processor (paragraph 15 discloses a processor) coupled to a memory (paragraph 15 discloses a memory), the memory is configured to store a non-transitory instructions, and the processor is configured to execute the non-transitory instructions to thereby cause the communication apparatus to perform operations comprising:
receiving first information from a first communication device (see at least paragraphs 38 and 42 and fig. 8 discloses the UE/IAB child node, which corresponds to second device, receiving an Upstream RLF notification from Node A), wherein the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message, or the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to receive system information from the first communication device, the second communication device is configured to communicate with a first donor network device via the first communication device (see at least paragraphs 38 and 42 and fig. 8 discloses the UE/IAB child node receiving an Upstream RLF notification from Node A; RRC reestablishment procedure initiated based on the Upstream RLF notification ); sending the radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message based on the first information (see at least paragraphs 38 and 42 and fig. 8 discloses the UE/IAB child node sending RRC reestablishment request); and the communication apparatus is the second communication device or is included in the second communication device (see at least fig. 8 [UE/IAB Child node]).
Regarding claim 8, Ishii discloses the sending the RRC re-establishment request message based on the first information comprises: receiving the system information from the first communication device based on the first information; determining that a second donor network device and the first donor network device are different network devices; and sending the RRC re-establishment request message (paragraph 42-43).
Regarding claim 9, Ishii discloses the system information comprises an identifier of the second donor network device or length information of the identifier of the second donor network device (paragraph 52).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 38.874 0.7.0 (2018-11) Study on Integrated Access and Backhaul (release 15) (hereinafter 3GPP) in view of Ishii (WO 2020/059633).
Regarding claim 1, 3GPP discloses a communication apparatus (fig. 9.7.13-6, [IAB-node 5]), wherein the communication apparatus comprises a processor (fig. 9.7.13-6 network node inherently includes processor) coupled to a memory (fig. 9.7.13-6 network node inherently includes memory), the memory is configured to store a non-transitory instructions, and the processor is configured to execute the non-transitory instructions to thereby cause the communication apparatus to perform operations comprising: performing a radio link failure (RLF) recovery process, and connecting to a second donor network device (fig. 9.7.13-6, [IAB-Donor DU2]) in response to an RLF occurring on a first communication device (fig. 9.7.13-6, [IAB-node 5]) connected to a first donor network device (fig. 9.7.13-6, [IAB-Donor DU1]) (fig. 9.7.13-6, [step 4] and page 97 [step 4] discloses recover step corresponding performing RRC connection reestablishment procedure); determining that the first donor network device and the second donor network device are different network devices (fig. 9.7.13-6 [Adapt Route B]); and the communication apparatus is the first communication device or is included in the first communication device (fig. 9.7.13-6, [IAB-node 5]).
3GPP specifically does not disclose sending first information to a second communication device, wherein the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message, or the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to receive system information from the first communication device, the second communication device is configured to communicate with the first donor network device via the first communication device. However, Ishii from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches sending first information to a second communication device, wherein the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message based on the first information, or the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to receive system information from the first communication device, the second communication device is configured to communicate with the first donor network device via the first communication device (see at least paragraphs 38 and 42 and fig. 9A discloses Node A sending to the UE/IAB child node, which corresponds to second device, an Upstream RLF notification; RRC reestablishment procedure initiated based on the Upstream RLF notification ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine 3GPP with Ishii as they both related RLF recovery procedure; and notifying the UE to perform RRC reestablishment procedure based on RLF detection.
Regarding claim 2, 3GPP discloses the system information comprises an identifier of the second donor network device or length information of the identifier of the second donor network device (section 9.7.13 [scenario 3]).
Regarding claim 3, 3GPP discloses the determining that the first donor network device and the second donor network device are different network devices comprises: determining, based on an identifier of a newly accessed cell, that an accessed second donor network device is a network device different from the first donor network device (page 97 [step B]).
Regarding claim 4, Ishii discloses the determining that the first donor network device and the second donor network device are different network devices comprises: receiving second information from the second donor network device, wherein the second information is useable to indicate that the second donor network device and the first donor network device are different network devices (paragraph 42-43 of Ishii). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, 3GPP discloses the second communication device is a first network device, and wherein the first information is further useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send an internet protocol (IP) address request message; or the apparatus further comprises: sending indication information to the second communication device, wherein the indication information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send the IP address request message (section 9.7.7 [step A, third paragraph]).
Regarding claim 6, Ishii discloses the first communication device is configured to send the first information via a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer control protocol data unit (PDU) or a media access control (MAC) layer control element (paragraph 39 of Ishii). Same motivation as claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii (WO 2020/059633) in view of 3GPP TR 38.874 0.7.0 (2018-11) Study on Integrated Access and Backhaul (release 15) (hereinafter 3GPP).
Regarding claim 10, Ishii specifically does not disclose wherein the second communication device is a first network device, and the operations further comprises: sending an internet protocol (IP) address request message based on the first information; or receiving indication information from the first communication device, wherein the indication information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send the IP address request message. However, Ishii from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the second communication device is a first network device, and the operations further comprises: sending an internet protocol (IP) address request message based on the first information; or receiving indication information from the first communication device, wherein the indication information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send the IP address request message (section 9.7.7 [step A, third paragraph]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ishii with 3GPP as they both related RLF recovery procedure; and notifying the UE to perform RRC reestablishment procedure based on RLF detection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 17, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in regards to the 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections as the claim is currently written. Arguments and corresponding examiner’s responses are shown below for Claim 7. The same arguments are valid for the Claim 7 and the similar features of other independent claims.
Argument: The Applicant argues on pages 6-8 that Ishii does not disclose “wherein the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message, or the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to receive system information from the first communication device, the second communication device is configured to communicate with a first donor network device via the first communication device; sending the radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message based on the first information” of independent claim 7 and similar feature in independent claim 1. Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because Ishii teaches “wherein the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message, or the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to receive system information from the first communication device, the second communication device is configured to communicate with a first donor network device via the first communication device; and sending the radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message based on the first information”. As stated in the previous office action, paragraphs 38 and 42 discloses the UE/IAB child node receiving an Upstream RLF notification from Node A; RRC reestablishment procedure initiated based on the Upstream RLF notification; the UE/IAB child node sending RRC reestablishment request. Upon reception of the RLF notification, the RRC reestablishment procedure is initiated. Additionally, paragraph 40 discloses initiating transmission of RRC reestablishment request based on notification. Therefore, Ishii teaches the above limitation.
Argument: The Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that Ishii does not disclose “sending first information to a second communication device, wherein the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message based on the first information, or the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to receive system information from the first communication device, the second communication device is configured to communicate with the first donor network device via the first communication device” of independent claim 1 and similar feature in independent claim 7. Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because the combination of 3GPP and Ishii teaches “sending first information to a second communication device, wherein the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to send a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message based on the first information, or the first information is useable to indicate that the second communication device is configured to receive system information from the first communication device, the second communication device is configured to communicate with the first donor network device via the first communication device”. As stated in the previous office action, paragraphs 38 and 42 of Ishii discloses the UE/IAB child node receiving an Upstream RLF notification from Node A; RRC reestablishment procedure initiated based on the Upstream RLF notification; the UE/IAB child node sending RRC reestablishment request. Upon reception of the RLF notification, the RRC reestablishment procedure is initiated. Additionally paragraph 40 of Ishii discloses initiating transmission of RRC reestablishment request based on notification. Therefore, the combination of 3GPP and Ishii teaches the above limitation when considered as a whole.
Conclusion
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 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 LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights