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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Decision unit and request unit in claim 1;
Detection unit, connection control unit and acquisition unit in claim 2;
Transmitting unit and reception unit in claim 4;
Second connection control unit and notification unit in claim 7;
Reception means in claim 10; and
Release unit and state transition unit in claim 9, establishing unit and controlling unit in claim 11;
As per the specification the units above are disclosed in Figs. 1, 2A and 2B and in [0009], [0026]-[0028, [0030], [0032]-[0033], [0036-[0037, [0042], [0047]-[0048], and [0057].
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims 16 & 17 call for Computer readable storage medium (CRSM), and in light of the specification, [0061], “Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a 'non-transitory computer readable storage medium')”, and in [0062], “it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the disclosed exemplary embodiments. The scope of the following claims is to be accorded the broadest interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications and equivalent structures and functions.”, imply that the CRSM is not exclusively limited to a non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (.US 2023/0397084 A1), hereinafter “Shah” supported by provisional application No. 63/092,074, filed on Oct. 15, 2020.
Claims 1, 13, and 16:
Regarding claim 1, Shah teaches, a communication apparatus functioning as a node that relays a communication between User Equipment and a base station (Shah: Fig.2, node 5 in Fig 3A and 3B and other figures), comprising: decision unit configured to decide, in a state in which the User Equipment and the communication apparatus are Radio Resource Control (RRC)-connected and the communication apparatus is connected to a first base station (Fig. 2, IAB donor 1; also figure 3A, 3B, 6, 8-10, and some other figures), whether to switch the base station, to which the User Equipment is connected via the communication apparatus, from the first base station to a second base station (Shah: [0420] “A determination/decision about which candidate neighbor IAB node to handoff to may be based on, for example, the local (e.g., immediate) hop channel quality and/or the multi-hop backhaul channel quality. A request may be made to the IAB donor node to perform a handoff ( e.g., or route update).); and
request unit configured to request, in a case where the decision unit decides to switch the base station connected to the User Equipment to the second base station, the User Equipment to release the RRC connection ([Abstract], “An Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, node determines link degradation in a primary path to a first Distributed Unit, DU, of a gNB, establishes a secondary path with a second DU of a gNB, detects link failure in the primary path, releases the primary path and makes the second primary path as a new primary path”; Fig. 10C showing, after RRC reconfiguration complete S1046, reconfiguration request to the user equipment, step S1048, which implies releasing the RRC connection).
Shah however does not expressly teach request units and decision units. Though not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention with the prior art performs essentially the same function as the cited request and decision units in the claim.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the prior art and come up with the claims, to express the functionality in terms of modular approach where individual modules performs the same designated task without the changing the overall functionality, so as to have added benefits of modular design, e.g., enhance flexibility, scalability, maintenance, and easier, targeted updates without full system overhauls.
Claim 13 is for method of claim 1. Claim elements are discussed in claim 1. Claim is a change in category with respect to claim 1.
Claim 16 is for computer-readable storage medium of storing a computer-executable
Program. The claim is a change in category with respect to claim 1.
Note: Based on discussion above in claim 1, for claims 2-17, the different units mentioned in the 112(f) interpretation section, are not mapped.
Regarding claim 2, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the communication apparatus has established a wireless link with another node (Fig. 2, the node 5 is linked with different nodes for primary path and secondary paths), and the communication apparatus further comprises: detection unit configured to detect, via the wireless link, a Radio Link Failure (RLF) between the first base station and the communication apparatus ([0380], “Measurements ( e.g., enhanced measurements) may be processed together, for example, with a local decision at an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node. Alternate paths may be measured, identified, and/or used, for example, to mitigate a degrading link and/or a potential radio link failure (RLF).”); first connection control unit configured to establish, in a case where the detection unit detects the RLF, a wireless link with a second another node which is a node different from the other node (Fig. 2 shows alternate paths to donor IABs); and
acquisition unit configured to acquire, after the establishment of the wireless link with the second other node, from the second other node, information of a base station to which the second other node is connected, wherein in a case where the acquisition unit acquires information indicating that the second other node is connected to the second base station (implied by disclosures in Fig. 10C, steps S1046 and S1060 showing continuing communication to new IAB donor node 2 ), the decision unit decides to switch the connection between the User Equipment and the base station to the second base station (implied by step S1060 discussed above).
Regarding claim 3, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 2 (discussed above), wherein the information of the base station to which the second other node is connected comprises a Physical Cell Indicator (PCI) (though not expressly disclosed as PCI, the claim is implied based on the disclosure, “[0393] An IAB node may attach directly to an IAB donor node or indirectly, e.g., via a child IAB node of a mesh network. The attachment process may be the same as or similar to an attachment process in a WTRU cell search.”; PCI is used for cell search).
Regarding claim 4, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the communication apparatus has established a wireless link with another node, and the communication apparatus further comprises: transmitting unit configured to transmit, to the first base station, a measurement report indicating strength and/or quality of a received signal in the wireless link measured by the communication apparatus (Fig.11C, step 1142; measurement report is sent from IAB 5, i.e. the communication apparatus of the claim); and
reception unit configured to receive a reconfiguration message from the first base station after the transmission of the measurement report, wherein in a case where it is recognized, by the reconfiguration message, to switch the base station connected to the User Equipment to the second base station (Fig.3A, steps 312, 314 shows the reconfiguration message), the decision unit decides to switch the connection between the User Equipment and the base station to the second base station (Fig.3B, steps 334, 336).
Regarding claim 5, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the request unit requests, by transmitting a predetermined message, the User Equipment to release the RRC connection (implied by the reconfiguration request message as discussed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 5 (discussed above), wherein the predetermined message is added with information of a frequency to which the User Equipment should connect preferentially (implied by disclosure in [0003] “The IAB nodes utilize the wireless access frequency bands in a shared manner for both access links from User Equipment (UEs) to IAB nodes and for backhaul links between IAB nodes.”; and [0369] “IAB nodes may utilize one or more wireless access frequency bands (e.g., in a shared manner) for access links from WTRUs to IAB nodes and/or for backhaul links between IAB nodes. IAB networks and mesh networks may be used interchangeably.”).
Regarding claim 7, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising: second connection control unit configured to establish connection to the second base station after the request unit requests the User Equipment to release the RRC connection (Fig.3A, steps S322 and S324); and
notification unit configured to notify, in a case where the second connection control unit establishes the connection to the second base station, the User Equipment that the connection to the second base station is established ([0209] “when handling RLF-related messaging, the RLF status may be communicated in a PDU where the PDU may incorporate various indications of a BH link such as: … [0212] Alternate path established: an alternate path has been established to overcome the current poor channel conditions.”).
Regarding claim 8, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the communication apparatus functions as an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) node and forwards data received from the User Equipment to the base station via wireless communication (discussed above in claim 1; see Fig.2 and Fig. 3 where the communication apparatus is shown as node 5, an IAB node.).
Claims 9 and 14:
Regarding claim 9, the claim is regarding A communication apparatus connected to a base station via another communication apparatus functioning as a node. Any IAB node between the user equipment and the donor base station, as shown in Fig. 2, e.g., would serve the purpose and functionality. The functionality as described in the claim are discussed above in claim 1.
The state of the communication apparatus from the RRC_CONNECTED state to an RRC_IDLE state; and connection control unit configured to detect the other communication apparatus and starting connection in the RRC_IDLE state, is implied based on the fact that RRC connection has been released.
The claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 is for a method related to claim 9. Claim is a change in category with respect to claim 9
Regarding claim 10, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 9 (discussed above), wherein in a case where the reception means receives, from the other communication apparatus, information indicating that the other communication apparatus has established connection to the second base station, the connection control unit detects the other communication apparatus and starts connection (implied by the following disclosures: Fig. 3A, RRC reconfiguration (step 314); “Path addition procedure is performed for IAB-node 5 (step 324); Fig.3B “Secondary Path is Made the New Primary Path for IAB Node 5” (step S336); Fig. 4 “Reconfigure the Network Routes, Request Impacted IAB Node to Connect with New Parent IAB Node” (step S424)).
Claims 11, 15, and 17:
Regarding claim 11, the claim is regarding an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) node relaying a communication between a User Equipment and an IAB donor. Any IAB node between the user equipment and the donor base station, as shown in Fig. 2, e.g., would serve the purpose and functionality. The functionality as described in the claim are discussed above in claim 1.
The claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 is for a method implemented by claim 11. Claim is a change in category with respect to claim 15.
Claim 17 is for computer-readable storage medium of storing a computer-executable
Program. The claim is a change in category with respect to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Shah teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 11 (discussed above), wherein the controlling unit transmits, in a case of determining that the second other IAB node is an IAB node under the control of another IAB donor different from the IAB donor based on information associated with the communication, a request for releasing a RRC connection to a User Equipment which is establishing a communication with the IAB node (implied by step S334, Fig.3B; IAB node 5 releases the primary path after RLF ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 11,877,165 B2 discloses IAB backhaul link failure and switching to different IAB node;
b) WO 2019/246446 discloses switching from a source IAB donor to a target IAB donor; and
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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.
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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462