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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-05-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-10 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-10 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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, 3-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2022/0015176) in view of Geskes et al (US 2021/0222606, hereinafter referred to as Geskes).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 10, Ishii discloses a communication control method used in a cellular communication system (see at least figure 1), the communication control method comprising: receiving, by a relay node, a flow control feedback message or a failure occurrence notification message from a parent node of the relay node (see figure 11); measuring, by the relay node, a certain period after receiving the flow control feedback message of the failure occurrence notification (see at least paragraph [0089], [0100], and [0101]); and executing, by the relay node, a conditional handover in response to the certain period elapsing (see at least figures 8, 9 and 11 and at least paragraphs paragraph [0089], [0100], [0101] and [0237[-[0238]).
Ishii discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the conditional handover is not executed for the certain period. However, Geskes, from the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the conditional handover is not executed for the certain period (see at least paragraphs [0043] and [0096]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Geskes, as indicated, into the communication method of Ishii for the purpose of maintaining connectivity and avoiding service interruption.
Regarding claim 3. Ishii in view of Geskes discloses a communication control method wherein the failure occurrence notification message comprises at least one of a message indicating that a radio link failure of a backhaul link between the relay node and the parent node is detected and a message indicating that recovery from the radio link failure of the backhaul link is being attempted (see at least figures 8, 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 5. Ishii in view of Geskes discloses a communication control method comprising performing, by a donor base station comprising a first relay node under control of the donor base station, a configuration related to a conditional handover for the first relay node; and executing, by the first relay node, the conditional handover based on the configuration (see at least figures 8, 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 6. Ishii in view of Geskes discloses a communication control wherein the performing the configuration comprises configuring, by the donor base station, one or more trigger conditions to be used by the first relay node among a plurality of trigger conditions related to the conditional handover for the first relay node, and the executing comprises executing, by the first relay node, the conditional handover when the one or more trigger conditions that are configured are satisfied (see at least figures 7- 9 and 11 and paragraphs [0073]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 9. Ishii in view of Geskes discloses a communication control method wherein the executing comprises, by the first relay node, selecting a candidate cell as a target cell and executing the conditional handover to the target cell, when a backhaul link between a second relay node managing the candidate cell and a parent node of the second relay node is normal, and selecting, by the first relay node, another candidate cell when the backhaul link is abnormal see at least figures 7- 9 and 11 and paragraphs [0073]-[0077]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Geskes and further in view of Hassan et al (US 2022/0210822). Hereinafter referred to as Hassan.
Regarding claim 2. Ishii in view of Geskes discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of executing, by the relay node, the conditional handover without a certain period elapsing in response to receiving the flow control feedback message from the parent node and to further receiving the failure occurrence notification message from the parent node. However, Hassan, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches transmission of handover command without timer wait period of feedbacks (see at least paragraph [0300]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Hassan, as indicated, into the communication method of Ishii in view of Geskes for the purpose of triggering handover and maintaining connectivity.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Geskes in view of Da Silva et al (US 2022/0007254). Hereinafter referred to as Da.
Regarding claim 7, Ishii in view of Geskes discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception configuring, by the donor base station, priorities of respective candidate cells for the first relay node, and the executing comprises, by the first relay node, selecting a candidate cell having a highest priority as a target cell and executing the conditional handover to the target cell. However, Da, from the same field of endeavor, teaches configuring, by the donor base station, priorities of respective candidate cells for the first relay node, and the executing comprises, by the first relay node, selecting a candidate cell having a highest priority as a target cell and executing the conditional handover to the target cell (see at least paragraph [0192]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Da, as indicated, into the communication method of Ishii in view of Geskes for the purpose of controlling handover procedures and guaranteeing service quality.
Regarding claim 8. Ishii in view of Geskes in view of Da discloses a communication control method wherein the performing the configuration comprises configuring, by the donor base station, a minimum radio quality threshold for the first relay node, and the executing comprises, by the first relay node, selecting a candidate cell having a highest priority as a target cell from among candidate cells having radio quality exceeding the minimum radio quality threshold and executing the conditional handover to the target cell (see at least paragraph [0192]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476