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 Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 3, filed Dec. 1, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 in view of Muhammad under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Muhammad under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammad et al. (US 20220141910 A1), hereafter Muhammad.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muhammad et al. (US 20220141910 A1 hereafter Muhammad).
Regarding claim 1, Muhammad discloses A communication control method ([0053] methods) comprising:
detecting, by a relay node, a failure in a radio backhaul link established between the relay node and an upper node, ([0061] detecting a failure of a backhaul link and [0089] The term “network node” … relay node);
determining, by the relay node, whether to initiate a recovery process of recovering the radio backhaul link; ([0059] The network node includes processing circuitry configured to detect a failure [i.e., determining] of a backhaul link … attempt to find an alternative backhaul link [i.e., initiate a recovery] to replace the failed backhaul link [i.e. recovering the radio])
in response to determining to initiate the recovery process, initiating, by the relay node, the recovery process ([0059] is configured to communicate a first indication of an existence of the failure); and
in response to initiating the recovery process, transmitting by the relay node to a lower node of the relay node, failure information indicating the detection of the failure in the radio backhaul link ([0059] existence of the failure to the first child network node one level below the network node affected by the failure); and
performing, by the relay node, a cell selection procedure of determining a target cell where the radio backhaul link is to be reestablished (Fig. 27 step S136 and Fig. 28 step S152; [0125-26], and [0148] the list of node identifiers communicated in the indications described above could be a physical cell identity]; thereby, the node selection procedure is a cell selection procedure and/or equivalent.),
Muhammad does not explicitly disclose by using allowed cell information received from an upper node of the relay node, wherein the allowed cell information identifies an allowed cell being a cell that is allowed to be selected as a target cell by the relay node
However, Muhammad suggests by using allowed cell information received from an upper node of the relay node, wherein the allowed cell information identifies an allowed cell being a cell that is allowed to be selected as a target cell by the relay node ([0131] Some signaling and mechanisms should be in place before some of the above selection mechanisms could be applied. For example, to enable a or b, IAB nodes 16 may keep the data transmission/reception history of their first level descendant IAB nodes 16 or UEs 6; [where the transmission/reception history reads on the allowed cell information] [0132] The donor node 16 may communicate any topology change (e.g., a UE 6 connecting or disconnecting to an IAB node 16, an IAB node 16 connecting or disconnecting from another IAB node 16, etc.) and [0134] Finally, to enable e, the IAB nodes 16 can use the bearer mapping and QoS information).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would be to communicate information from child nodes 16 to their parent node 16 whenever a child node 16 or UE 6 connects or disconnects from the child node, or it can be communicated from the donor nodes 16 to the IAB node 16, as the donor node 16 may have an overview of the whole topology of the network. (See Muhammad, pg. 40, para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Muhammad, suggests all the limitations and motivation of claim 1, as discussed above. Muhammad also discloses
a controller configured to detect a failure in a radio backhaul link established between the relay node and an upper node, and ([0059] processing circuitry configured to detect a failure of a backhaul link) and a transmitter, wherein, ([0107] one or more RF transmitters)
the controller configured to determine whether to initiate a recovery process of recovering the radio backhaul link, ([0109] network node 16 may include a reconfiguration unit 32 [i.e. controller] which is configured to attempt to find an alternative backhaul link when a backhaul link fails)
the controller configured to, in response to determining to initiate the recovery process, initiate the recovery process, and ([0109] configured to conditionally cause a child network node to find another network node to serve as a new parent network node)
the transmitter configured to, in response to initiating the recovery process, transmit to a lower node of the relay node, failure information indicating the detection of the failure in the radio backhaul link ([0109] cause the network node 16 to serve as a child of a child node of the network node.).
Regarding claim 3, Muhammad, suggests all the limitations and motivation of claim 1, as discussed above. Muhammad also discloses An apparatus controlling a relay node, the apparatus comprising a processor ([0109] processing circuitry 68.) and a memory ([0109] memory 72) coupled to the processor, the processor configured to
detect a failure in a radio backhaul link established between the relay node and an upper node, ([0125] FIG. 27 Block S134 detect a failure of a backhaul link)
determine whether to initiate a recovery process of recovering the radio backhaul link, ([0125] FIG. 27 Block S138 attempt to find an alternative backhaul link fails)
in response to determining to initiate the recovery process, initiate the recovery process, and ([0125] FIG. 27 Block S142 indication of an existence of the failure is communicated)
in response to initiating the recovery process, transmit to a lower node of the relay node, failure information indicating the detection of the failure in the radio backhaul link ([0125] FIG. 27 Block S140 attempt to find an alternative backhaul link succeeds, the alternative backhaul link is then utilized).
Conclusion
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 ALISON SLATER whose telephone number is (571)270-0375. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8AM-4PM EST, alt FRI.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647