DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
2. The response filed on November 21, 2025 has been entered and made of record.
3. Claims 8-14 were cancelled.
4. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
5. The applicant's arguments filed on November 21, 2025 regarding claims 1-4 and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, applicant argued that there is no motivation to combine Ronkainen and Lee (Applicant, page 6-9, Remarks Made in an Amendment dated November 21, 2025).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing against Ronkainen and Lee rather than disputing what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP § 2145 IV states:
"One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
Accordingly,
(1) Ronkainen explicitly discloses receiving a first message from a core network element, the first IAB node comprises a first IAB central unit-user plane (CU-UP), a first IAB-distributed unit (DU), and a first IAB-mobile terminal (MT) and the first IAB CU-UP is connected to the local data network; and notify the first IAB CU-UP to establish the first PDU session (Figs. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], [0092]); and
(2) Lee explicitly discloses the first message carries an identifier of a first protocol data unit (PDU) session and a first data network name (DNN) associated with the identifier of the first PDU session and the first DNN indicates a local data network corresponding to a first IAB node (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165]).
Both Ronkainen and Lee disclose the whole of the claim feature. The claim is not taken apart. Primary reference-Ronkainen also implies the claim features (i.e. for example, the UE specific subscriber profile together with the requested type of service and/or flow-based information (e.g. an identification of the flow or slice by a slice or flow ID), which may be indicated by a network slice, or possibly a certain access point name (APN), allows the core network 101 (e.g. the session management function, SMF) to select a proper UPF) also revealed by secondary reference-Lee. It is clear that Ronkainen in combination with Lee teaches each and every features of independent claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ronkainen demonstrates methods and apparatuses involving the field of wireless communication networks specifically to integrated access and backhaul (IAB) communication networks and Lee demonstrates a method for discovering a local area data network available in a place where a terminal is located, and establishing, disconnecting, or disabling a PDU session for connecting the data network of the terminal in accordance with the location of the terminal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Ronkainen to provide discovering a local area data network available in a place where a terminal is located, and establishing, disconnecting, or disabling a PDU session for connecting the data network of the terminal in accordance with the location of the terminal as taught by Lee for the reasons set forth in the rejection.
Therefore, in view of above, while Applicant’s remarks and arguments have been considered, they are not persuasive.
Clarifying fundamental difference between claims functionality and the cited reference’s by incorporating the allowable subject matter indicated in this office action could overcome the current outstanding rejection (The examiner believes a more favorable outcome may occur if the applicant amends each independent claims by incorporating the features of objected claims 5-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1, 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronkainen et al. (US 2023/0209402 A1), hereinafter “Ronkainen” in view of LEE et al. (US 2020/0229119 A1), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Ronkainen discloses a communication apparatus (Figs. 1, 2, 8, schematic diagram of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network and sequence block diagrams of two example scenarios with reference to the PUD session selection), which is a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) donor or included in the first IAB donor (Figs. 1, 2, 8, IAB-donor), comprising a processor coupled to a memory configured to store a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory (Figs. 1, 2, 8, computer readable code being configured such that, on execution by a suitable computer or processor), to cause the apparatus to:
receive a first message (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], [0092], step 804-step 805, UE 106 is authenticated in step 804 and UPF is selected according to the configured policies in step 802. AMF/SMF provides traffic filter rules to the remote UPF 108 c) from a core network element (Fig. 1, 8, core network element), the first IAB node (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], 0092], 1st IAB (104 a + 108b)) comprises a first IAB central unit-user plane (CU-UP), a first IAB-distributed unit (DU), and a first IAB-mobile terminal (MT) (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], [0092], IAB nodes 104 are equipped with a mobile termination (MT) functionality that terminates the radio interface layers of the backhaul Uu interface toward its upstream IAB node); and the first IAB CU-UP is connected to the local data network (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], [0092], local data network 108 is configured to handle collection of data of the UEs 106, and comprises a local application server 108 a, a locally arranged central unit-user plane, CU-UP, 108 b and a local user plane function, UPF 108 c; the local application server 108 a of the local data network 108 is collocated with the first IAB node 104 a); and
notify the first IAB CU-UP to establish the first PDU session (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0058], [0092], step 805-step 806, CU-CP will select in step 805 the remote/local CU-UP 108 b based on UE information; in step 806 data bearers are setup).
While Ronkainen implicitly refers to “wherein the first message carries an identifier of a first protocol data unit (PDU) session and a first data network name (DNN) associated with the identifier of the first PDU session, and the first DNN indicates a local data network corresponding to a first IAB node” (Fig. 1, 2, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], [0092], for example, the UE specific subscriber profile together with the requested type of service and/or flow-based information (e.g. an identification of the flow or slice by a slice or flow ID), which may be indicated by a network slice, or possibly a certain access point name (APN), allows the core network 101 (e.g. the session management function, SMF) to select a proper UPF; if the UE data meets the requirement, the remote/local UPF 108 c is selected and data traffic will be forwarded to the local application server 108 a; Moreover, either using the UE information or type of service or flow-based information, the CU-UP is also selected; the selected CU-UP may be a central CU-UP of the donor node 102 or a remote/local CU-UP 108 b of the local data network 108), Lee from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses the first message carries (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165], claim 1, PDU session for local area data network) an identifier of a first protocol data unit (PDU) session (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, operation 10, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165], LADN indicator indicating corresponding session) and a first data network name (DNN) associated with the identifier of the first PDU session (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165], claim 1, DNN information), and the first DNN indicates a local data network corresponding to a first IAB node (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165], claim 1, information capable of indicating local area data network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the first message carries an identifier of a first protocol data unit (PDU) session and a first data network name (DNN) associated with the identifier of the first PDU session, and the first DNN indicates a local data network corresponding to a first IAB node” as taught by Lee, in the system of Ronkainen, so that it would provide discovering a local area data network available in a place where a terminal is located, and establishing, disconnecting, or disabling a PDU session for connecting the data network of the terminal in accordance with the location of the terminal (Lee, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Ronkainen in view of Lee disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Lee further discloses there is a mapping relationship between the first DNN and the first IAB-MT (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0097]-[0099], [0158]-[0159], [0165], data network access allowed area configured statistically or dynamically in accordance with terminal subscription information and operator’s policy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “there is a mapping relationship between the first DNN and the first IAB-MT” as taught by Lee, in the system of Ronkainen, so that it would provide discovering a local area data network available in a place where a terminal is located, and establishing, disconnecting, or disabling a PDU session for connecting the data network of the terminal in accordance with the location of the terminal (Lee, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Ronkainen in view of Lee disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Lee further discloses receive a second message from the core network element, wherein the second message indicates a mapping relationship between an identifier of the first IAB-MT and the first DNN (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0097]-[0099], [0158]-[0159], [0165], at operation 1, the terminal may include information capable of indicating the local area data network (e.g., DNN information) in a session establishment request message to be transmitted to the network; and at operation 10, the SMF transmits, to the AMF, an LADN indicator indicating that the corresponding session is the local area data network together with a message for allowing the session).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “receive a second message from the core network element, wherein the second message indicates a mapping relationship between an identifier of the first IAB-MT and the first DNN” as taught by Lee, in the system of Ronkainen, so that it would provide discovering a local area data network available in a place where a terminal is located, and establishing, disconnecting, or disabling a PDU session for connecting the data network of the terminal in accordance with the location of the terminal (Lee, paragraph [0014]).
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronkainen et al. (US 2023/0209402 A1), hereinafter “Ronkainen” in view of LEE et al. (US 2020/0229119 A1), hereinafter “Lee” in view of MILDH et al. (US 2023/0247697 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers. 63/011,778, filed on Apr. 17, 2020, 63/011,789, filed on Apr. 17, 2020 and 63/011,801, filed on Apr. 17, 2020), hereinafter “Mildh”.
Regarding claim 4, Ronkainen in view of Lee disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Neither Ronkainen nor Lee explicitly discloses “notifying the first JAB CU-UP to establish the first PDU session further comprises: sending, to the first JAB CU-UP, a first indication message indicating to establish the first PDU session, wherein the first indication message carries a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) address of the first IAB-MT and an internet protocol (IP) address of the first IAB CU-UP”.
However, Mildh from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses notifying the first JAB CU-UP to establish the first PDU session further comprises: sending, to the first JAB CU-UP, a first indication message indicating to establish the first PDU session, wherein the first indication message carries a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) address of the first IAB-MT and an internet protocol (IP) address of the first IAB CU-UP (Figs. 13, 18, paragraphs [0072], [0074], [0204], [0209], each separate connection to a given IAB node may need to be associated with a separate BAP identifier, e.g., address, path, address+path; and each separate connection may need to be associated with at least 1 separate IP address to support multiple connections to use different Donor DUs and allow selection of which connection to use by the end nodes (IAB node, Donor CU)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “notifying the first JAB CU-UP to establish the first PDU session further comprises: sending, to the first JAB CU-UP, a first indication message indicating to establish the first PDU session, wherein the first indication message carries a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) address of the first IAB-MT and an internet protocol (IP) address of the first IAB CU-UP” as taught by Mildh, in the combined system of Ronkainen and Lee, so that it would provide handling transmission of one or more packets and/or one or more messages from a sending node to a receiving node relates to split architecture necessary for donor CU-CP to configure the CU-UP with DL GTP-based duplication (Mildh, paragraph [0204]).
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronkainen et al. (US 2023/0209402 A1), hereinafter “Ronkainen” in view of LEE et al. (US 2020/0229119 A1), hereinafter “Lee” in view of Teyeb et al. (US 2023/0328604 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application number. 63/059,714, filed on Jul. 31, 2020), hereinafter “Teyeb”.
Regarding claim 7, Ronkainen in view of Lee disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Neither Ronkainen nor Lee explicitly discloses “the processor is further configured to: hand over a terminal device to a second IAB donor; and send a handover request message to the second IAB donor, wherein the handover request message carries the identifier of the first PDU session and the first DNN”.
However, Teyeb from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the processor is further configured to: hand over a terminal device to a second IAB donor (Fig.7, paragraphs [0137], [0152], [0163], scenario D, “inter-CU” or “inter-donor-CU”); and
send a handover request message to the second IAB donor, wherein the handover request message carries the identifier of the first PDU session and the first DNN (Fig.7, paragraphs [0137], [0152], [0163], In operation 1, the source gNB-CU-CP sends HANDOVER REQUEST message to the target gNB-CU-CP. In operations 2-4, a bearer context setup procedure is performed as described in 3GPP TS 38.331 section 8.9.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the processor is further configured to: hand over a terminal device to a second IAB donor; and send a handover request message to the second IAB donor, wherein the handover request message carries the identifier of the first PDU session and the first DNN” as taught by Teyeb, in the combined system of Ronkainen and Lee, so that it would provide enabling advantageous deployment of IAB solutions to address difficulties in integrating IAB nodes into a RAN (Teyeb, paragraph [0017]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 5-6 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable contingent upon or subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as presented by applicant and referenced herein,
(2) that the subject limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitation, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations, and
(3) that all independent claims were amended with similar features and the amendments were submitted in a formal response.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5-6, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “the processor is further configured to receive a first request message from the first IAB CU-UP, wherein the first request message is used to request to establish an interface between the first IAB CU-UP and a central unit-control plane (CU-CP) of the first IAB donor; and the first request message carries the BAP address of the first IAB-MT and the IP address of the first IAB CU-UP; and determine a mapping relationship between the BAP address of the first IAB-MT and the IP address of the first IAB CU-UP based on the first request message”.
Prior art reference Ronkainen et al. (US 2023/0209402 A1), hereinafter “Ronkainen” teaches receiving a first message (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], [0092], step 804-step 805) from a core network element (Fig. 1, 8, core network element), the first IAB node (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], 0092], 1st IAB (104 a + 108b)) comprises a first IAB central unit-user plane (CU-UP), a first IAB-distributed unit (DU), and a first IAB-mobile terminal (MT) (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], [0092], IAB nodes 104 are equipped with a mobile termination (MT) functionality); and the first IAB CU-UP is connected to the local data network (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0039], [0056], [0068], [0092], local data network 108 configured to handle collection of data of the UEs); and notifying the first IAB CU-UP to establish the first PDU session (Fig. 1, 8, paragraphs [0058], [0092], step 805-step 806, CU-CP will select in step 805 the remote/local CU-UP 108 b based on UE information).
Prior art reference LEE et al. (US 2020/0229119 A1), hereinafter “Lee” further teaches the first message carries (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165], claim 1, PDU session for local area data network) an identifier of a first protocol data unit (PDU) session (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, operation 10, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165], LADN indicator indicating corresponding session) and a first data network name (DNN) associated with the identifier of the first PDU session (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165], claim 1, DNN information), and the first DNN indicates a local data network corresponding to a first IAB node (Figs. 1, 9A-9B, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0158]-[0159], [0165], claim 1, information capable of indicating local area data network).
The prior art, however, neither explicitly teaches nor suggests the subject matter, as recited by claims 5-6.
Conclusion
11. 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 SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/SITHU KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights