DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to the Amendments filed on April 13, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 20-44 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications on 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedin et al. (USPGPub 2022/0124706) in view of AKL et al. (USPGPub 2021/0410031).
As per claim 1, Abedini teaches a first integrated access and backhaul, IAB, donor node, (Abedini, see paragraph [0030], a gNB such as an IAB-donor connected to a terminal) the first IAB donor node including processing circuitry configured to:
receive a first resource configuration for a first parent IAB node from a second IAB donor node, the first parent IAB node being in communication with a child IAB node (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], generates and transmits a message to a DU that includes the DU cell-specific configuration, an identity of child nodes and/or cells, and other information. The CU may identify another cell, such as the DU's own cell, another parent cell serving the child node, etc., in the list of child cells. The CU also includes a resource configuration (Note: this is the resource configuration received) for the identified child cell)
determine compatibility between the first resource configuration and a second resource configuration for a second parent IAB node; (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], Upon receiving the message, the DU may compare the cell-related information for different parent or child nodes. Based on this and potentially other information, the DU may determine that the cell identifier (ID) for the child node in the received message is incorrect) and
determine whether to accept a request to establish a connection between the second parent IAB node and the child IAB node based at least in part on the compatibility determination (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], the DU may substitute the child-specific resource configuration information for its cell-specific configuration and may proceed to communicate via its cell with the child node using the substituted child specific resource configuration).
Abedini doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first IAB donor node and the second IAB donor node each comprise a centralized unit (CU).
In analogous art AKL teaches wherein the first IAB donor node and the second IAB donor node each comprise a centralized unit (CU) (AKL, see paragraph [0007], a first indication to migrate from a first IAB donor node associated with a first cell group and a first central unit (CU) to a second IAB donor node associated with a second cell group and a second CU, perform, by the IAB node and based at least in part on receiving the first indication, a first random access procedure to connect to the second cell group associated with the second IAB donor node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the teaching of AKL and apply them on the teaching of Abedini as doing so would allow transmission of a relatively low volume of non-delay-sensitive information in an efficient manner. (AKL, see paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 2, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 1, wherein, when it is determined that there is a compatibility between the first and second resource configurations, the processing circuitry is further configured to configure the second parent IAB node with the second resource configuration. (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], the DU may substitute the child-specific resource configuration information for its cell-specific configuration and may proceed to communicate via its cell with the child node using the substituted child specific resource configuration).
As per claim 3, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node wherein, when it is determined that there is a compatibility between the first and second resource configurations, the processing circuitry is further configured to send the second resource configuration to the second IAB donor node. (Abedini, see paragraph [0069], the CU and resource configuration component 252 may be configured to prepare a GNB-DU RESOURCE CONFIGURATION information element (IE) which includes a gNB-DU Cell Resource Configuration (IE) for sending to the DU, which includes the resource configuration information used for data transmissions between nodes)
As per claim 4, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 1, wherein determining compatibility between the first and second resource configurations is based at least in part on a ratio of an amount of conflicting resources to an amount of compatible resources between the first and second resource configurations. (Abedini, see paragraph [0134], identifying a conflict between the configurations, the CU evaluating potential consequences of the conflict may determine that the RRC-based TDD configuration may be used (or temporarily adjusted) to change the overall configuration and thereby avoid data errors while also not backing off from the communication)
As per claim 5, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine conflicting resources between the first and second resource configurations and to deactivate the conflicting resources for at least one of the first parent IAB node and the second parent IAB node. (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], the DU may determine that the cell identifier (ID) for the child node in the received message is incorrect. The received cell ID may in fact be its own cell or the cell of another node in the IAB network. The DU thereupon recognizes that for the identified child node, the provided resource configuration for the child cell is in fact “side information” representing a child-node specific resource configuration. The DU may therefore modify the resource configuration of the DU cell serving the identified child node)
As per claim 6, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 1, wherein determining compatibility between the first and second resource configurations is based at least in part on a priority associated with each of the first and second parent IAB nodes. (Abedini, see paragraph [0132], The DU can then modify the resource configuration to communicate with the child node. While both fields in FIG. 10 may coexist if a priority or order is provided the DU, in the case where it is not desirable to add further signaling overhead).
As per claim 7, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether to accept the request to establish the connection based at least in part on an amount of congestion in one of the first and second parent IAB nodes. (Abedini, see paragraph [0100], This may result in implications, such as, but not limited to, power consumption, interference, and incorrect inference of the channel/link quality at the child-node. Furthermore, such resources may have been used for other communications of the child-node (e.g. communication with grand-children, or with another parent))
As per claim 8, Abedini teaches a method in a first integrated access and backhaul, IAB, donor node, (Abedini, see paragraph [0030], a gNB such as an IAB-donor connected to a terminal) the method comprising:
receiving a first resource configuration for the first parent IAB node from a second IAB donor node, the first parent IAB node being in communication with a child IAB node; (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], generates and transmits a message to a DU that includes the DU cell-specific configuration, an identity of child nodes and/or cells, and other information. The CU may identify another cell, such as the DU's own cell, another parent cell serving the child node, etc., in the list of child cells. The CU also includes a resource configuration (Note: this is the resource configuration received) for the identified child cell)
determining compatibility between the first resource configuration and a second resource configuration for a second parent IAB node (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], Upon receiving the message, the DU may compare the cell-related information for different parent or child nodes. Based on this and potentially other information, the DU may determine that the cell identifier (ID) for the child node in the received message is incorrect) and
determining whether to accept a request to establish a connection between the second parent IAB node and the child IAB node based at least in part on the compatibility determination. (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], the DU may substitute the child-specific resource configuration information for its cell-specific configuration and may proceed to communicate via its cell with the child node using the substituted child specific resource configuration).
Abedini doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first IAB donor node and the second IAB donor node each comprise a centralized unit (CU).
In analogous art AKL teaches wherein the first IAB donor node and the second IAB donor node each comprise a centralized unit (CU) (AKL, see paragraph [0007], a first indication to migrate from a first IAB donor node associated with a first cell group and a first central unit (CU) to a second IAB donor node associated with a second cell group and a second CU, perform, by the IAB node and based at least in part on receiving the first indication, a first random access procedure to connect to the second cell group associated with the second IAB donor node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the teaching of AKL and apply them on the teaching of Abedini as doing so would allow transmission of a relatively low volume of non-delay-sensitive information in an efficient manner. (AKL, see paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 9, Abedini-AKL teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprising, when it is determined that there is a compatibility between the first and second resource configurations, configuring the second parent IAB node with the second resource configuration. (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], the DU may substitute the child-specific resource configuration information for its cell-specific configuration and may proceed to communicate via its cell with the child node using the substituted child specific resource configuration).
As per claim 10, Abedini-AKL teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprising, when it is determined that there is a compatibility between the first and second resource configurations, sending the second resource configuration to the second IAB donor node. (Abedini, see paragraph [0069], the CU and resource configuration component 252 may be configured to prepare a GNB-DU RESOURCE CONFIGURATION information element (IE) which includes a gNB-DU Cell Resource Configuration (IE) for sending to the DU, which includes the resource configuration information used for data transmissions between nodes)
As per claim 11, Abedini-AKL teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein determining compatibility between the first and second resource configurations is based at least in part on a ratio of an amount of conflicting resources to an amount of compatible resources between the first and second resource configurations. (Abedini, see paragraph [0134], identifying a conflict between the configurations, the CU evaluating potential consequences of the conflict may determine that the RRC-based TDD configuration may be used (or temporarily adjusted) to change the overall configuration and thereby avoid data errors while also not backing off from the communication)
As per claim 12, Abedini-AKL teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprising determining conflicting resources between the first and second resource configurations and to deactivate the conflicting resources for at least one of the first parent IAB node and the second parent IAB node. (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], the DU may determine that the cell identifier (ID) for the child node in the received message is incorrect. The received cell ID may in fact be its own cell or the cell of another node in the IAB network. The DU thereupon recognizes that for the identified child node, the provided resource configuration for the child cell is in fact “side information” representing a child-node specific resource configuration. The DU may therefore modify the resource configuration of the DU cell serving the identified child node)
As per claim 13, Abedini-AKL teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein determining compatibility between the first and second resource configurations is based at least in part on a priority associated with each of the first and second parent IAB nodes. (Abedini, see paragraph [0132], The DU can then modify the resource configuration to communicate with the child node. While both fields in FIG. 10 may coexist if a priority or order is provided the DU, in the case where it is not desirable to add further signaling overhead).
As per claim 14, Abedini-AKL teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprising determining whether to accept the request to establish the connection based at least in part on an amount of congestion in one of the first and second parent IAB nodes. (Abedini, see paragraph [0100], This may result in implications, such as, but not limited to, power consumption, interference, and incorrect inference of the channel/link quality at the child-node. Furthermore, such resources may have been used for other communications of the child-node (e.g. communication with grand-children, or with another parent)).
As per claim 15, teaches a first integrated access and backhaul, IAB, donor node (Abedini, see paragraph [0030], a gNB such as an IAB-donor connected to a terminal) the first IAB donor node comprising processing circuitry configured to:
send to a second IAB donor node a request to establish a connection between a child IAB node and a second parent IAB node, the child IAB node being in communication with a first parent IAB node (Abedini, see paragraph [0137], …one or more child nodes. The CU may therefore revise the then-current RRC TDD configuration to provide a per-child configuration and proceed with communications to or from the child node(s)…the DU that is looking to make the RRC TDD configuration adjustment first sends a request to the DU, and the DU may grant the request)
send a first resource configuration of the first parent IAB node to the second IAB donor node and receive a second resource configuration for the second parent IAB node from the second IAB donor node (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], generates and transmits a message to a DU that includes the DU cell-specific configuration, an identity of child nodes and/or cells, and other information. The CU may identify another cell, such as the DU's own cell, another parent cell serving the child node, etc., in the list of child cells. The CU also includes a resource configuration for the identified child cell)
the second resource configuration based at least in part on a determination of compatibility between the first resource configuration and a second resource configuration for the second parent IAB node. (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], Upon receiving the message, the DU may compare the cell-related information for different parent or child nodes. Based on this and potentially other information, the DU may determine that the cell identifier (ID) for the child node in the received message is incorrect. Also see paragraph [0038], the DU may substitute the child-specific resource configuration information for its cell-specific configuration and may proceed to communicate via its cell with the child node using the substituted child specific resource configuration).)
Abedini doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first IAB donor node and the second IAB donor node each comprise a centralized unit (CU).
In analogous art AKL teaches wherein the first IAB donor node and the second IAB donor node each comprise a centralized unit (CU) (AKL, see paragraph [0007], a first indication to migrate from a first IAB donor node associated with a first cell group and a first central unit (CU) to a second IAB donor node associated with a second cell group and a second CU, perform, by the IAB node and based at least in part on receiving the first indication, a first random access procedure to connect to the second cell group associated with the second IAB donor node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the teaching of AKL and apply them on the teaching of Abedini as doing so would allow transmission of a relatively low volume of non-delay-sensitive information in an efficient manner. (AKL, see paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 16, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to send a second resource configuration of the first parent IAB node to the first parent IAB node, the second resource configuration based at least in part on the determination of compatibility. (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], Upon receiving the message, the DU may compare the cell-related information for different parent or child nodes. Based on this and potentially other information, the DU may determine that the cell identifier (ID) for the child node in the received message is incorrect. Also see paragraph [0038], the DU may substitute the child-specific resource configuration information for its cell-specific configuration and may proceed to communicate via its cell with the child node using the substituted child specific resource configuration).)
As per claim 17, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive the second resource configuration of the first parent IAB node. (Abedini, see paragraph [0134], identifying a conflict between the configurations, the CU evaluating potential consequences of the conflict may determine that the RRC-based TDD configuration may be used (or temporarily adjusted) to change the overall configuration and thereby avoid data errors while also not backing off from the communication)
As per claim 18, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 15, wherein the second resource configuration includes an indication of conflicting resources to be deactivated by the first IAB donor node. (Abedini, see paragraph [0038], the DU may determine that the cell identifier (ID) for the child node in the received message is incorrect. The received cell ID may in fact be its own cell or the cell of another node in the IAB network. The DU thereupon recognizes that for the identified child node, the provided resource configuration for the child cell is in fact “side information” representing a child-node specific resource configuration. The DU may therefore modify the resource configuration of the DU cell serving the identified child node)
As per claim 19, Abedini-AKL teaches the first IAB donor node of Claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the determination of compatibility between the first resource configuration and the second resource configuration. (Abedini, see paragraph [0132], The DU can then modify the resource configuration to communicate with the child node. While both fields in FIG. 10 may coexist if a priority or order is provided the DU, in the case where it is not desirable to add further signaling overhead).
Conclusion
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 HERMON ASRES whose telephone number is (571)272-4257. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571)272-7304. 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.
/HERMON ASRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights