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
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Objections”, with respect to claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112”, with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, with respect to claims 10-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220225129 by Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen) in view of US 20220014976 by Luo et al. (hereinafter Luo).
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches a communication apparatus, which is a target parent node of a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node or included in the target parent node (fig. 2, shows parent IAB node 206a of IAB node 206d),
wherein the communication apparatus comprises a processor (¶ 107),
wherein the processor is coupled to a memory (¶ 107);
and the memory is configured to store a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory, to cause the communication apparatus to perform operations, comprising (¶ 107):
receiving configuration information of a backhaul radio link control channel (BH RLC CH) from an IAB donor (¶ 59, donor CU 204 sends a first configuration information of the BH RLC channel to the parent IAB node 206a DU of the IAB node 206d MT),
wherein the configuration information of the BH RLC CH is configuration information of a BH RLC CH between the first IAB node and a source parent node of the first IAB node (¶ 59, After the IAB node 206a DU receives the first configuration information from the donor CU 204 (step 610), it may use the first configuration information to configure the BH RLC channel; ¶ 58, IAB node 206d MT to establish the BH RLC channel; ¶ 63, the IAB node 206d MT need to be configured with the BH RLC channels; ¶ 60, donor CU 204 may configure the parent IAB node 206a DU with default BH RLC channel or BH RLC channel specific for the OAM traffic; ¶ 65, BH RLC channel…between IAB node 206d…and parent IAB node 206a. Examiner correspond IAB node 206a to the source parent node and IAB node 206d to the first IAB node),
wherein the configuration information is obtained by the IAB donor from a retrieve user equipment (UE) context response message sent by a source IAB donor (given non-patentable weight since this wherein clause discloses features of the IAB donor whereas this claim is directed to a communication apparatus);
and determining a configuration of a BH RLC CH between the first IAB node and the target parent node based on the configuration information of the BH RLC CH (¶ 59, After the IAB node 206a DU receives the first configuration information from the donor CU 204 (step 610), it may use the first configuration information to configure the BH RLC channel; ¶ 60, donor CU 204 may configure the parent IAB node 206a DU with default BH RLC channel or BH RLC channel specific for the OAM traffic; ¶ 65, BH RLC channel…between IAB node 206d…and parent IAB node 206a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s above teachings with Chen’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is improving performance in wireless communication systems (Chen ¶ 25).
Although Chen teaches the IAB donor is a IAB donor, the target parent node is connected to the IAB donor (Chen fig. 2, shows IAB node 206a is connected to donor CU 204), and the source parent node is connected to a IAB donor (Chen fig. 2, shows IAB node 206a is connected to donor CU 204), Chen does not explicitly disclose the IAB donor is a target IAB donor, the target parent node is connected to the target IAB donor, and the source parent node is connected to the source IAB donor.
Luo in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an IAB donor is a target IAB donor (fig. 4a, IAB donor CU 408; ¶ 54, target path 482 includes nodes…408) and a IAB donor CU is also a source IAB donor (fig. 4a, IAB donor CU 408; ¶ 53, source path 481 includes nodes…408). By modifying Chen’s teachings of the IAB donor is a IAB donor, the target parent node is connected to the IAB donor, and the source parent node is connected to a IAB donor with Luo’s teachings of an IAB donor is a target IAB donor and a IAB donor CU is also a source IAB donor, the modification results in the IAB donor is a target IAB donor, the target parent node is connected to the target IAB donor, and the source parent node is connected to the source IAB donor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s teachings with Luo’s above teachings. The motivation is solving the issue of a child relay node becoming disconnected from a parent relay node during relay node handover (Luo ¶ 3-4). Known work in one field of endeavor (Luo prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Chen prior art) based on design incentives (solving the issue of a child relay node becoming disconnected from a parent relay node during relay node handover) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the configuration information of the BH RLC CH between the first IAB node and the target parent node comprises at least one of the following: an identifier of the BH RLC CH, a logical channel identifier corresponding to the BH RLC CH, radio link control (RLC) configuration information, or logical channel configuration information (Chen ¶ 60, the first configuration may include at least one of the following fields: BH RLC channel ID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s above teachings with Chen’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is improving performance in wireless communication systems (Chen ¶ 25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the amendments made to independent claim 1 incorporating allowable subject matter cited in the non-final rejection indicates the reason(s) claims 1-2 and 5-9 are patentable over the prior arts of record.
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 PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights