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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or indicate National Stage entry from a PCT application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/06/2023 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner did not make a prima facie showing that the species identified in the Office Action create a serious burden on the Examiner and require restriction. This is not found persuasive because:
An international application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, the inclusion of those inventions in one international application is only permitted if all inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (PCT Rule 13.1). With respect to a group of inventions claimed in an international application, unity of invention exists only when there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” is defined in PCT Rule 13.2 as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination is made on the contents of the claims as interpreted in light of the description and drawings (if any).
Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a “contribution” over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a “special technical feature,” should be considered with respect to novelty and inventive step. For example, a document discovered in the international search shows that there is a presumption of lack of novelty or inventive step in a main claim, so that there may be no technical relationship left over the prior art among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, leaving two or more dependent claims without a single general inventive concept. (See MPEP 1850, PCT Rule 40, “II. DETERMINATION OF ‘UNITY OF INVENTION’”).
Furthermore, Species I and II have different limitations that require different search strategy that make a serious search burden on the Examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, as a dependent claim of claim 2, recites, “wherein the facilitating includes forwarding, by the source donor, the DL data packet to the target donor prior to the transmitting of the context of the IAB-node to the target donor”; and Claim 2, as dependent claim of claim 1, recites, “wherein the determining includes: receiving, from the target donor, a request for a context of the IAB-node, the context associated with a protocol for controlling radio resources”, However, claim 1 “determining” step is prior to “facilitating” step. It is not clear how in claim 4, “the facilitating includes forwarding, by the source donor, the DL data packet to the target donor” could be prior to “the transmitting of the context”.
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(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. - US 20230171651 A1- (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method in a source donor for managing a connection between a user equipment (UE) and a radio access network (RAN) via an integrated access backhaul (IAB)-node (FIG. 10 and FIG. 11, par. 0197, for “before the handover, a parent node of the IAB node 3 (namely, a source parent node of the IAB node 3) is an IAB node 1, a source IAB donor DU is an IAB donor DU 1, and a source IAB donor CU is an IAB donor CU 1. After the handover, a parent node of the IAB node 3 (namely, a target parent node of the IAB node 3) is an IAB node 4, a target IAB donor DU is an IAB donor DU 2, and a target IAB donor CU is an IAB donor CU 2” FIG. FIG. 3 5G-RAN), the method comprising:
determining, by the source donor and when the IAB-node communicates with the RAN via the source donor, that the IAB-node is to migrate from the source donor to a target donor to establish a new radio connection with the RAN (FIG. 9A-9B to FIG. 11, FIG. 17, par. 0417, “The IAB donor CU 1 may determine, based on the received measurement report, to hand over the IAB node 3 from the IAB node 1 to the IAB node 4”; par. 0051, “the source donor node is a source donor node during access relay node handover or intermediate relay node handover, and the target donor node is a target donor node during the access relay node handover or the intermediate relay node handover. The intermediate relay node is connected to the access relay node. A relay node on which handover occurs may be referred to as a migration relay node.”);
based on the determining, establishing, by the source donor, connectivity with the target donor (FIG. 9A-9B, par. 0154, “S902: The source base station sends a handover request message to a target base station”; FIG. 17A and FIG. 18A, pa. 0419-0420, “S503: The IAB donor CU 1 sends a handover request message to the IAB donor CU 2, where the handover request message includes capability indication information.”);
subsequently to the establishing, receiving, by the source donor and from a core network (CN), a downlink (DL) data packet addressed to the UE (FIG. 8, par. 0150, “As shown in FIG. 8, a source base station receives downlink data of a terminal from a core network”; FIG. 9A, par. 0163, “S906 and S907 describe a process in which the source base station forwards a sequence number (SN) status and data. The source base station may forward, to the target base station, a part of downlink data that is of the terminal and that is received from the core network”); and
facilitating, by the source donor and via the target donor, communication of the DL data packet to the UE after migrating the IAB-node to the target donor (FIG. 9A, par. 0163, “S906 and S907 describe a process in which the source base station forwards a sequence number (SN) status and data. The source base station may forward, to the target base station, a part of downlink data that is of the terminal and that is received from the core network”).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Liu discloses wherein the determining includes: determining, by the source donor and based on signaling between the source donor and the IAB-node, to initiate a handover of the UE to the target donor (FIG. 11 and 17A-18D, par. 0413-0415, “S501: The IAB node 3 sends a measurement report to the IAB donor CU 1… The IAB node 3 may measure, based on a measurement configuration received from the IAB donor CU 1, a serving cell of the accessed IAB node 1 and a neighboring cell serve by the IAB node 4, to obtain the measurement report, and send the measurement report to the IAB donor CU 1.”; par. 0420, “the handover request message may carry context information of the IAB node 3 and descendant nodes of the IAB node 3. For example, the descendant nodes of the IAB node 3 include an IAB node 2 and the terminal 1, and the handover request message may carry context information of the IAB node 3, the IAB node 2, and the terminal 1.”).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9 above, Liu discloses transmitting, by the source donor to the target donor, a handover request for the UE (par. 0417-0419, “The IAB donor CU 1 may determine, based on the received measurement report, to hand over the IAB node 3 from the IAB node 1 to the IAB node 4… S503: The IAB donor CU 1 sends a handover request message to the IAB donor CU 2, where the handover request message includes capability indication information.”).
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, 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) 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. -US 20230051568 A1- (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Liu discloses the claimed invention except wherein the determining includes: receiving, from the target donor, a request for a context of the IAB-node, the context associated with a protocol for controlling radio resources.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein the determining includes: receiving, from the target donor, a request for a context of the IAB-node, the context associated with a protocol for controlling radio resources (FIG. 17-23, par. 0276-0277, “the target base station may perform a retrieve UE context procedure by sending a retrieve UE context request message to the source base station (the last serving base station) of the UE… For RRC connection reestablishment procedure, the retrieve UE context request message may comprise at least one of a UE context ID, integrity protection parameters or a new cell identifier. The UE context ID may comprise at least one of C-RNTI contained the RRC reestablishment request message, a PCI of the source PCell (the last serving PCell). The integrity protection parameters for the RRC reestablishment may be the short MAC-I. The new cell identifier may be an identifier of the target cell wherein the target cell is a cell where the RRC connection has been requested to be re-established.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate messages retrieving contest request and retrieving context response between target and source station as taught by Kim to the method for handing over of a relay node from a source IAB doner to a target IAB donor as disclosed by Liu for purpose of retrieving contexts of the wireless device based on an identity of the wireless device or IAB node.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2 above, Kim discloses transmitting, by the source donor and in response to the request for the context, the context of the IAB-node to the target donor (FIG. 17-23, par. 0278-0279, “If the source base station is able to identify the UE context by means of the UE context ID, and to successfully verify the UE by means of the integrity protection contained in the retrieve UE context request message, and decides to provide the UE context to the target base station, the source base station may respond to the target base station with a retrieve UE context response message.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate messages retrieving contest request and retrieving context response between target and source station as taught by Kim to the method for handing over of a relay node from a source IAB doner to a target IAB donor as disclosed by Liu for purpose of retrieving contexts of the wireless device based on an identity of the wireless device or IAB node.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 2 above, Liu discloses subsequently to receiving the request for the context of the IAB-node: receiving, from the target donor, a request for a context of the UE, the context associated with a protocol for controlling radio resources (FIG. 17D, par. 0461-S525: The IAB donor CU 2 sends the UE context release message to the IAB donor CU 1.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kim, as applied to claim(s) 2 above, and further in view of Hapsari et al. -US 20190059119 A1- (hereinafter Hapsari).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 2 above, Liu as modified by Kim discloses the claimed invention except subsequently to receiving the request for the context of the IAB-node: transmitting, by the source donor to the target donor, a handover request for the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, Hapsari discloses subsequently to receiving the request for the context of the IAB-node: transmitting, by the source donor to the target donor, a handover request for the UE (par. 0116, “since the Handover Request message used in the example 1 of the context retrieval procedure is provided with a function for responding to the context, it can be referred to as the context response message.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using a Handover Request message a function for responding to the context as taught by Hapsari to the retrieve UE context response as disclosed by (Liu as modified by) Kim for purpose of using a Handover request message as the retrieve UE context response.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Wisniewski et al. -US 20200045080 A1- (hereinafter Wisniewski).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Liu discloses the claimed invention except wherein the facilitating includes: encrypting, by the source donor, the DL data packet in accordance with a context of the UE.
In the same field endeavor, Wisniewski discloses wherein the facilitating includes: encrypting, by the source donor, the DL data packet in accordance with a context of the UE (FIG. 6, par. 0054 and 0055, “At 650, transparent proxy 615-a may transmit the data stream with the modified source indicator, where the data stream is encrypted according to the specific encryption policy… Additionally, transparent proxy 615-a may establish a TLS or mTLS tunnel with transparent proxy 615-b (e.g., at target host 610) and transmit the data stream through the TLS or mTLS tunnel to transparent proxy 615-b… At 655, transparent proxy 615-b may decrypt the encrypted data stream based on the specific encryption policy. Subsequently, at 660, transparent proxy 615-b may then transmit the decrypted data stream to target host 610.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate source host with transparent proxy to encrypt and transfer data to a target host with transport proxy as taught by Wisniewski to the data forwarded from the source base station to the target base station as disclosed by Liu for purpose of encrypting and decrypting data transmitted and received between source donor node and target donor node.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of LIU et al. -US 20210022050 A1- (hereinafter Liu’2050) further in view of Agiwal -US 20220007423 A1- (hereinafter Agiwal).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, Liu discloses the claimed invention except subsequently to the establishing: receiving, by the source donor and from the target donor, an uplink (UL) data packet transmitted by the UE and forwarded to the source donor from the target donor; and decrypting, by the source donor, the uplink data packet.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu’2050 discloses receiving, by the source donor and from the target donor, an uplink (UL) data packet transmitted by the UE and forwarded to the source donor from the target donor (FIG. 3, par. 0058, “In S252, the target access network device may forward the uplink data to the source access network device through the data tunnel established between the source access network device and the target access network device.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate forwarding uplink data from a target access network to source access network as taught by Liu’2050 to the data transmitted and received between the source donor base station and the target donor base station as disclosed by Liu for purpose of forwarding uplink data from the target donor base station to the source donor base station.
However, Liu as modified by Liu’2050 fail to explicitly disclose decrypting, by the source donor, the uplink data packet.
In the same field of endeavor, Agiwal discloses decrypting, by the source donor, the uplink data packet (par. 0136, “The gNB decrypts the uplink data and verifies MAC I (if uplink data is integrity protected) and delivers the uplink data to a UP function (UPF) at operation 735.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate decrypting uplink data as taught by Agiwal to the forwarded the uplink data received from a target base station as disclosed by Liu as modified by Liu’2050 for purpose of decrypting a received encrypted data form the target donor base station.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Wu et al. - US 20230403617 A1- disclose MANAGING INTEGRATED ACCESS AND BACKHAUL MOBILITY.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N whose telephone number is (571)270-1772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (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.
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642