CTFR 18/269,275 CTFR 93853 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The examiner has taken notice that claims 1, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-19 have been amended, and claims 20-22 and 24-30 have been canceled. Claims 1-19 and 23 are pending in the current application. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Vajapeyam fails to disclose or suggest receiving (by an apparatus), from a network entity via the at least one transceiver, an indication of at least one of a coverage re-visit time or a backhaul connection unavailability, as recited in independent claims 1, 19, and 23. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously cited in the recent office action, Vajapeyam teaches an SeNB transmitting an indication of radio link failure (RLF) to an MeNB upon detection (Vajapeyam – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0034], note SeNB 108 may also detect RLF of a connection with the UE 102 and may transmit an indication of the RLF to the MeNB 106 over the backhaul connection, in response to the detection) . Additionally, the MeNB of Vajapeyam also teaches managing the S-RLF in response to the indication by communicating with the UE (Vajapeyam – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0034], note MeNB 106 may take at least one action to manage the S-RLF, including transmitting a reconfiguration command to the UE) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the MeNB to take corrective action by implicitly notifying the RLF to the UE through the reconfiguration command, allowing the UE to also take corrective action by suspending communication (Vajapeyam – Paragraph [0034], note in response to detecting the S-RLF, the UE may also suspend communication with the SeNB to prevent uplink interference with uplink transmission of other UEs in the vicinity of UE) . Additionally, since the claim language only recites “an apparatus for wireless communication” as the recipient of the indication, the MeNB of Vajapeyam may also be interpreted as the apparatus that receives the indication (from the SeNB). Therefore, Vajapeyam still teaches receiving (by an apparatus), from a network entity via the at least one transceiver, an indication of at least one of a coverage re-visit time or a backhaul connection unavailability, as recited in independent claims 1, 19, and 23 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 7, 12, 14, 18-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vajapeyam et al. (US 2015/0223282 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Vajapeyam . Regarding claim 1 , Vajapeyam teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (Vajapeyam – Fig. 6; Paragraph [0054], note UE 650) , comprising: at least one transceiver (Vajapeyam – Fig. 6; Paragraph [0057], note receiver 654RX; Paragraph [0060], note transmitter 654TX) ; at least one memory comprising instructions (Vajapeyam – Fig. 6; Paragraph [0058], note the controller/processor can be associated with a memory 660 that stores program codes and data) ; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus (Vajapeyam – Fig. 6; Paragraph [0058], note the controller/processor can be associated with a memory 660 that stores program codes and data) to: receive, from a network entity via the at least one transceiver, an indication of at least one of a coverage re-visit time or a backhaul connection unavailability (Vajapeyam – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0034], note SeNB 108 may also detect RLF of a connection with the UE 102 and may transmit an indication of the RLF to the MeNB 106 over the backhaul connection, in response to the detection) ; and initiate at least one of a signaling procedure or a data packet procedure based on the indication of at least one of the coverage re-visit time or the backhaul connection unavailability, each of the signaling procedure and the data packet procedure being associated with at least one of the coverage re-visit time or the backhaul connection unavailability (Vajapeyam – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0034], note in response to detecting the S-RLF, the UE may also suspend communication with the SeNB to prevent uplink interference with uplink transmission of other UEs in the vicinity of UE 102, MeNB 106 may take at least one action to manage the S-RLF, including transmitting a reconfiguration command to the UE (to implicitly notify the RLF)) . Regarding claim 2 , Vajapeyam teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: identify, based on the received indication, whether to initiate at least one of the signaling procedure or the data packet procedure, wherein the at least one of the signaling procedure or the data packet procedure is initiated based on the identification whether to initiate at least one of the signaling procedure or the data packet procedure (Vajapeyam – Paragraph [0034], note in response to detecting the S-RLF, the UE may also suspend communication with the SeNB to prevent uplink interference with uplink transmission of other UEs in the vicinity of UE 102, MeNB 106 may take at least one action to manage the S-RLF, including transmitting a reconfiguration command to the UE) . Regarding claim 3 , Vajapeyam teaches wherein the signaling procedure is associated with at least one of a duration of the coverage re-visit time or a power saving mode (Vajapeyam – Paragraph [0034], note in response to detecting the S-RLF, the UE may also suspend communication (as a power saving operation) with the SeNB to prevent uplink interference with uplink transmission of other UEs in the vicinity of UE 102) . Regarding claim 7 , Vajapeyam teaches wherein when the data packet procedure is initiated, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: initiate a transmission of at least one data packet; cancel the transmission of the at least one data packet; or postpone the transmission of the at least one data packet (Vajapeyam – Paragraph [0034], note in response to detecting the S-RLF, the UE may also suspend communication with the SeNB to prevent uplink interference with uplink transmission of other UEs in the vicinity of UE 102; Paragraph [0082], note S-RLF recovery, where the UE may re-establish the SeNB connection) . Regarding claim 12 , Vajapeyam teaches wherein the indication is received via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a system information block (SIB) (Vajapeyam – Paragraph [0034], note UE 102 may provide the indication of the S-RLF to the MeNB 106 by transmitting a Radio Link Control (RRC) message to the MeNB 106) . Regarding claim 14 , Vajapeyam teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to initiate a power saving mode for a duration of the coverage re-visit time (Vajapeyam – Paragraph [0034], note S-RLF procedure for the SeNB 108 may include S-RLF detection, S-RLF indication, and at least one of S-RLF recovery, in response to detecting the S-RLF, the UE may also suspend communication with the SeNB to prevent uplink interference with uplink transmission of other UEs in the vicinity of UE 102; Paragraph [0082], note S-RLF recovery, where the UE may re-establish the SeNB connection) . Regarding claim 18 , Vajapeyam teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to operate as a user equipment (UE) (Vajapeyam – Fig. 6; Paragraph [0057], note at UE 650, each receiver 654RX receives a signal through its respective antenna 652; Paragraph [0060], note spatial streams generated by the TX processor 668 are provided to different antenna 652 via separate transmitters 654TX) . Regarding claim 19 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, except the claim is written in a method claim format. Regarding claim 23 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, except the claim is written from the perspective of the network entity . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vajapeyam in view of Sundstedt et al. (US 2015/0118954 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Sundstedt . Regarding claim 4 , Vajapeyam teaches wherein when the signaling procedure is initiated, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: initiate the power saving mode (Vajapeyam – Paragraph [0034], note in response to detecting the S-RLF, the UE may also suspend communication (as a power saving operation) with the SeNB to prevent uplink interference with uplink transmission of other UEs in the vicinity of UE 102) . Vajapeyam does not teach wherein when the signaling procedure is initiated, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: initiate a timer for the duration of the coverage re-visit time. In an analogous art, Sundstedt teaches wherein when the signaling procedure is initiated, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: initiate a timer for the duration of the coverage re-visit time (Sundstedt – Fig. 2; Paragraph [0043], note at step 202, GTCS 140a determines that vehicle 105 has an outage, at step 204, GTCS 140a starts an outage monitoring timer at the beginning of the outage) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sundstedt into Vajapeyam in order to allow managing network outages using recovery mode operation (Sundstedt – Paragraph [0007]) . Regarding claim 5 , Vajapeyam does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: adjust a length of the timer based on the duration of the coverage re-visit time. In an analogous art, Sundstedt teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: adjust a length of the timer based on the duration of the coverage re-visit time (Sundstedt – Paragraph [0044], note at step 206, GTCS 140a determines that the GSM service has been restored on vehicle 105 during the monitoring process, GTCS 140a stops the outage monitoring timer at step 208) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sundstedt into Vajapeyam for the same reason as claim 4 above. Regarding claim 17 , Vajapeyam does not teach wherein the coverage re-visit time corresponds to an amount of time between a coverage of a first base station in a network and a coverage of a second base station in the network, wherein the network entity is associated with the network. In an analogous art, Sundstedt teaches wherein the coverage re-visit time corresponds to an amount of time between a coverage of a first base station in a network and a coverage of a second base station in the network, wherein the network entity is associated with the network (Sundstedt – Paragraph [0043], note at step 202, GTCS 140a determines that vehicle 105 has an outage, for example, a total outage can occur due to GSM transmission being turned off when vehicle 105 travels within 12 nautical miles of land; Paragraph [0044], note at step 206, GTCS 140a determines that the GSM service has been restored on vehicle 105 during the monitoring process, GTCS 140a stops the outage monitoring timer at step 208) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sundstedt into Vajapeyam for the same reason as claim 4 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-9, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vajapeyam in view of Griot et al. (US 2018/0098240 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Griot . Regarding claim 8 ¸ Vajapeyam does not teach wherein the transmission of the at least one data packet is associated with a data forwarding service and the postponed transmission of the at least one data packet is associated with a data store-and-forward service. In an analogous art, Griot teaches wherein the transmission of the at least one data packet is associated with a data forwarding service and the postponed transmission of the at least one data packet is associated with a data store-and-forward service (Griot – Paragraph [0040], note the UE 102 may indicate to the MME 112, via the eNB 106, that no further UL or DL data transmissions are expected, in this case, the MME 112 may process (integrity check/decipher/forward) the received data packet, and send a service accept message to the UE 102 with a back-off timer, the UE 102 may interpret the service accept message as a successful transmission of the data packet, and start the back-off timer; Paragraph [0089], note if the UE receives a data packet (e.g., mobile terminated (MT) CP data packet) while the data back-off timer is running, the UE may stop the back-off timer and continue with data transmissions) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Griot into Vajapeyam in order to limit UE data transmissions when the network is overloaded (Griot – Paragraph [0040]) . Regarding claim 9 , Vajapeyam does not teach wherein a list of networks is associated with at least one of the data forwarding service or the data store-and-forward service. In an analogous art, Griot teaches wherein a list of networks is associated with at least one of the data forwarding service or the data store-and-forward service (Griot – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0037], note the network architecture 100 may be referred to as an Evolved Packet System (EPS) 100, the EPS can interconnect with other access networks, the EPS provides packet-switched services, however, as those skilled in the art will readily appreciate, the various concepts presented throughout this disclosure may be extended to networks providing circuit-switched services) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Griot into Vajapeyam for the same reason as claim 8 above. Regarding claim 13 , Vajapeyam does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to adjust at least one non-access stratum (NAS) supervision timer based on the coverage re-visit time. In an analogous art, Griot teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to adjust at least one non-access stratum (NAS) supervision timer based on the coverage re-visit time (Griot – Paragraph [0040], note in some cases, the MME 112 may determine that the network is overloaded and may decide to return a data back-off timer to the UE 102 via a non-access stratum (NAS) message) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Griot into Vajapeyam for the same reason as claim 8 above. Regarding claim 15 , Vajapeyam does not teach wherein the data packet procedure is associated with at least one of consumer internet of things (CIoT) data or a control plane service request (CPSR) procedure. In an analogous art, Griot teaches wherein the data packet procedure is associated with at least one of consumer internet of things (CIoT) data or a control plane service request (CPSR) procedure (Griot – Paragraph [0040], note the UE 102 may initiate a control plane service request in order to send data to the network, the MME 112 may determine that the network is overloaded) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Griot into Vajapeyam for the same reason as claim 8 above. Regarding claim 16 , the combination of Vajapeyam and Griot, specifically Vajapeyam teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the network entity via the at least one transceiver, an indication of a data transmission when the backhaul connection is available (Vajapeyam – Fig. 14; Paragraph [0083], note the UE may detect an RLF of a connection with the SeNB, for example, by detecting one or more of Random Access failure on the SeNB, measured radio link quality (e.g., downlink quality) degradation of a link with the SeNB below a threshold resulting in high control channel error probability, RLC re-transmission failures for bearers served by the SeNB, RLF on the MeNB link, SeNB handover (or change) failure, or detecting loss of synchronization with the SeNB, at 1408, the UE may continue to monitor, measure, and report the SeNB radio link quality, at 1410, the UE may, upon detection of improved radio conditions) ; and re-transmit, via the at least one transceiver, the data transmission based on the received indication (Vajapeyam – Paragrpah [0083], note at 1410, the UE may, upon detection of improved radio conditions, perform a random access procedure on the SeNB, at 1412, the UE may re-establish connection with the SeNB) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vajapeyam in view of Medina et al. (US 2017/0118064 A1) cited by the applicant, hereinafter referred to as Medina . Regarding claim 11 , Vajapeyam does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the network entity via the at least one transceiver, satellite ephemeris data; and identify at least one of the coverage re-visit time or the backhaul connection unavailability based on the satellite ephemeris data. In an analogous art, Medina teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the network entity via the at least one transceiver, satellite ephemeris data; and identify at least one of the coverage re-visit time or the backhaul connection unavailability based on the satellite ephemeris data (Medina – Paragraph [0046], note a satellite channel outage forecast is obtained at 410 (shown in phantom), the forecast can include results of a solar conjunction calculation, and or a weather forecast based on locations of the satellite terminal and the corresponding satellite) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Medina into Vajapeyam in order to allow content to be accessed by wireless devices during satellite outage periods (Medina – Paragraph [0036]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6 and 10 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miao (US 11,696,187 B2) discloses an IAB CU node generating an RRC message indicating resource availability configuration for a backhaul resource in response to determining that the backhaul resource is unavailable. Henry et al. (US 2013/0003534 A1) discloses a radio base station (RBS) receiving a notification from a network controller indicating the existence of a backhaul link failure condition. Shrestha et al. (US 2023/0043459 A1) discloses satellite revisit time/coverage gap in NTN where the UE is unreachable by the wireless network. Bergstrom et al. (US 2023/0319606 A1) discloses a UE receiving a backhaul RLF from a parent node when connected as an Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) node. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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. /BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 2 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 3 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 5 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 6 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 7 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 8 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 9 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 10 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 11 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 12 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 13 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 14 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/269,275 Page 15 Art Unit: 2461
Prosecution Insights