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 Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 05 December 2025.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 112
Previous rejection of claims 9 and 19 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the rejected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 10-13] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, 16 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on page 10-13, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “wherein the version indicates a capability range comprising supported functions of the E2 node in accordance with the communication protocol”.
Newly found reference Iterum discloses a system where communication interface between nodes comprises versions related to functions and capabilities of the communication interface in accordance with the protocol supported by communication interface. Then, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that the E2 interface in Parekh would also communicate the protocols supported by it comprising functionalities and capabilities according with the protocol [Column 3 – Lines 15-35 | Column 5 – Lines 55-65 | Column 6 – Lines 1-25, 55-65 | Column 7 – Lines 25-40].
Regarding claims 6, 11, 16, these claims have been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Thus, claims 1-2 and 4-21 are presented for examination.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parekh et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0234803) in view of Iterum et al. (US Patent No. 7,260,818).
Regarding claim 1, Parekh teaches method performed by an E2 node (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a near-real time (RT) radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (RIC), an E2 setup request message (via E2 interface, node 108 requests near RT RAN RIC 106 connection [Paragraphs 12-14, 45, 48-49, 52, 58-59]); and
receiving, from the near-RT RIC, an E2 setup response message (RIC 106 responds to the request [Paragraphs 12-14, 45, 48-49, 52, 58-59]),
wherein the E2 setup request message comprises:
information for indicating an interface type of the E2 node (the communication identifies the type of connection between both entities via the E2 connection [Paragraphs 12-14, 45, 48-49, 52, 58-59]), and
information for indicating a version of a communication protocol corresponding to the indicated interface type (protocol version of the communication is included in the request [Paragraphs 12-14, 45, 48-49, 52, 58-59]), and
[.
However, Parekh does not explicitly mention: wherein the version indicates a capability range comprising supported functions of the E2 node in accordance with the communication protocol.
Iterum teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the version indicates a capability range comprising supported functions of the E2 node in accordance with the communication protocol (Iterum discloses a system where communication interface between nodes comprises versions related to functions and capabilities of the communication interface in accordance with the protocol supported by communication interface. Then, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that the E2 interface in Parekh would also communicate the protocols supported by it comprising functionalities and capabilities according with the protocol [Column 3 – Lines 15-35 | Column 5 – Lines 55-65 | Column 6 – Lines 1-25, 55-65 | Column 7 – Lines 25-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Parekh) by indicating capabilities ranges (as taught by Iterum) for the purpose of reducing costs associated with system upgrades (Iterum – Column 2 – Lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 2, Parekh further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the information for identifying the interface type of the E2 node comprises one of X2 interface, Xn interface, F1 interface, S2 interface, E2 interface, NG interface, or W1 interface ([Paragraphs 38, 53, 62]), and wherein the communication protocol comprises an application protocol according to a technical specification (TS) 36.423, TS 38.423, TS 38.473, TS 36.413, TS 38.463, TS 38.413, or TS 37.473 ([Paragraphs 53, 58]).
Regarding claim 4, Parekh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the E2 setup request message comprises an information element (IE) for E2 node component interface type of an E2 node component configuration addition item ([Paragraphs 11, 48, 55]), and wherein the IE comprises the information for identifying the interface type of the E2 node and the information for identifying the version of the communication protocol ([Paragraphs 38, 52, 55, 58]).
Regarding claims 6-7, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-2.
Regarding claim 8, Parekh further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the E2 setup request message comprises an information element (IE) for an E2 node component configuration addition list ([Paragraphs 11, 55]), and wherein the IE comprises the information for indicating the interface type of the E2 node and the information for indicating the version of the communication protocol ([Paragraphs 38, 52, 55, 58]).
Regarding claims 11-14, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 4.
Regarding claims 16-18, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-2, 8.
Claims 5, 10, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parekh et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0234803) in view of Iterum et al. (US Patent No. 7,260,818) and further in view of Landais et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0294855).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Parekh and Iterum teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Parekh and Iterum does not explicitly mention: wherein the version is indicated based on three octet strings of the information for identifying the version of the communication protocol, and wherein the three octet strings comprise a first octet string that indicates release information, a second octet string that indicates update information of the release information, and a third octet string that indicates editorial information.
Landais teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the version is indicated based on three octet strings of the information for identifying the version of the communication protocol (Figs. 9-13), and wherein the three octet strings comprise a first octet string that indicates release information ([Paragraph 11]), a second octet string that indicates update information of the release information ([Paragraph 29]), and a third octet string that indicates editorial information ([Paragraphs 86, 104, 177]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Parekh) by indicating capabilities ranges (as taught by Iterum) by defining octets (as taught by Landais) for the purpose of enabling communications (Landais – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 10, 15, 20, these claims are rejected as applied to claim 5.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parekh et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0234803) in view of Iterum et al. (US Patent No. 7,260,818) and further in view of Yeh et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0014963).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Parekh and Iterum teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Parekh and Iterum does not explicitly mention: wherein the supported functions are related to at least one of at least one of dual connectivity (DC) or a cross-link interference (CLI).
Yeh teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the supported functions are related to at least one of at least one of dual connectivity (DC) or a cross-link interference (CLI) (for the disclosed system, dual connectivity is one of the supported functions for the E2 node [Paragraph 400]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Parekh) by indicating capabilities ranges (as taught by Iterum) by using DC or CLI (as taught by Yeh) for the purpose of managing multi-access traffic (Yeh – Paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 are 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
March 22, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633