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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in para. 57, the text reference error should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 31 is 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.
Regarding claim 31, the first and second IAB nodes are recited as being the same but in parent claim 30 the topology of the nodes is inter-donor which means more than one donor node must be present as noted in para 7 of the specification of the instant application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 28, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0168798) in view of Ghanbarinejad et al. (US 2023/0247574). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 28, Xu discloses a method performed by an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) donor node for synchronized activation of a resource configuration (figs. 1 and 10-13; note: time slot resources), the method comprising: determining, by the IAB-donor node, a synchronized update time (paras. 112-113, 129 and 132; note: update starting time to change a slot format) for performing a synchronized configuration update in a
However, Xu fails to disclose a plurality of parent IAB-nodes and wherein the child IAB-node is dual-connected to the plurality of parent IAB-nodes. Ghanbarinejad discloses these features (fig. 2B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of parent IAB-nodes and wherein the child IAB-node is dual-connected to the plurality of parent IAB-nodes in the invention of Xu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing a network layout coverage as is known in the art (Ghanbarinejad, fig. 2B and paras. 60, 70, 95 and 99; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 37, Xu in view of Ghanbarinejad teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 28, wherein transmitting the synchronized update time to each parent IAB-node comprises transmitting an activation delay to each parent IAB-node (Xu, figs. 10-13; step S1001; paras. 112-113, 118, 122, 129 and 132; note: the update start time is an activation delay) before performing the synchronized configuration update (step S1007).
Regarding claim 40, Xu in view of Ghanbarinejad teaches and makes the method of claim 28, wherein transmitting the synchronized update time to each parent IAB-node to activate the synchronized configuration update comprises one of: .
Claims 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Ghanbarinejad as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2018/034525).
Regarding claim 38, Xu in view of Ghanbarinejad teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 28, wherein the synchronized update time comprises an indication (para. 112-113) but fails to disclose the synchronized update time as a system frame number and a slot number. Park discloses a time is indicated by a system frame number and a time slot number (paras. 233 and 466-467). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the synchronized update time as a system frame number and a slot number in the invention of Xu in view of Ghanbarinejad. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, provide a specific value of time as is known in the art (Park, paras. 233 and 466-467; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 40, Xu in view of Ghanbarinejad and Park teaches and makes the method of claim 28, wherein transmitting the synchronized update time to each parent IAB-node to activate the synchronized configuration update comprises one of: transmitting a specific slot (Park, paras. 233 and 466-467), .
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu ‘798 in view of Ghanbarinejad as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0258244).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu ‘798 in view of Ghanbarinejad (or Xu ‘798 in view of Ghanbarinejad and Park) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0258244). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 39, Xu ‘798 in view of Ghanbarinejad fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 28, wherein transmitting the synchronized update time to each parent IAB-node comprises transmitting the synchronized update time in an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message. However, Xu ‘244 discloses transmitting signaling from an IAB-donor to parent IAB-nodes using F1-AP messages (para. 69 and 75; fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein transmitting the synchronized update time to each parent IAB-node comprises transmitting the synchronized update time in an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message in the invention of Xu ‘798 in view of Ghanbarinejad. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, provide a data format for a transmission as is known in the art (Xu ‘244, para. 69 and 75; fig. 2; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 41, Xu ‘798 in view of Ghanbarinejad (and Park) and Xu ‘244 teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 40, wherein the synchronized update time or the activation delay are provided
Regarding claim 42, Xu ‘798 in view of Ghanbarinejad (and Park) and Xu ‘244 teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 41, wherein the message from the IAB-donor node to the child IAB-node comprises an F1 message or a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message (Xu ‘798, paras. 112-113; Xu, ‘244, fig. 2 and paras. 69 and 75).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-36 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. Additionally, for claim 31 to be allowable the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 must be overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights