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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 4 and 14 are canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 1/26/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 15 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 4 renders the objection to claim 4 previously set forth in the Final Action mailed on 11/25/2025 moot and the objection to claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 (pages 6-9) in a reply filed 1/26/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Further, Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 (pages 6-9) in a reply filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11:
Applicant contends, in page 8, that “Considering that the MT migration in Figures 6A and 6B represents a sequential operation, the MT migrates in the order CU1 [Wingdings font/0xE0] CU2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] CU3, and subsequently (“after”), the DU migrates from CU1 to CU3. See, Huang, paragraphs [0046]-[0048]. Thus, both MT and DU ultimately move to the same target CU (CU3). The Examiner’s assertion-citing only Figures 6A and 6C to claim that the MT and DU can have different target CUs (CU2 and CU3, respectively)-is based on a selective reading of the disclosure and misinterprets the original technical teaching of Huang.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument improperly imports limitations from the specification, which describes preferred embodiments but does not limit the claim scope. The limitations of the claim 1 recite two transmitting steps only and do not recite any other steps. Further, Applicant’s argument improperly imports assumptions about the teachings of Huang that the operations in Figures 6A, 6B, and 6C represent a sequential operation of an MT migration. Huang specifically states that “Additionally, the specific order or hierarchy of steps in the methods disclosed herein are merely example approaches. Based upon design preferences, the specific order or hierarchy of steps of the disclosed methods or processes can be re-arranged while remaining within the scope of the present solution. Thus, those of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the methods and techniques disclosed herein present various steps or acts in a sample order, and the present solution is not limited to the specific order or hierarchy presented unless expressly stated otherwise.” (see, Huang: para. [0029]) and that nowhere in Huang states that Figures 6A, 6B, and 6C are sequential. Various example embodiments described with reference to the accompanying figures are to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the solution presented by Huang (see, Huang: para. [0029]).
Applicant contends, in page 9, that “Furthermore, Applicant submits that Huang fails to disclose the operation specified in Claim 1 wherein the first IAB donor CU transmits a triggering message to the mobile IAB DU to prepare for an F1 setup with a third IAB donor CU. While ZTE teaches that the source donor CU could trigger the IAB-DU migration procedure by “indicat[ing] the IAB node to initiate F1 setup procedure with target donor CU,” ZTE does not teach triggering F1 setup toward a third IAB donor CU that is different from the second IAB donor CU (the first target for MT migration). See ZTE, Section 2.2.1. Neither ZTE nor Huang, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests transmitting a triggering message for F1 setup towards a third IAB donor CU that is different from the second IAB donor CU for a migration of the mobile IAB MT, as recited by Claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Huang teaches wherein CU2 (equivalent to the second IAB donor CU of the instant application) may send assistance information to CU1 (equivalent to the first IAB donor CU of the instant application) during or after mobile IAB-MT migration to donor DU3 and CU1 can initiate the F1 transport migration procedure or update procedure to CU3 (equivalent to the third IAB donor CU of the instant application) (see, Huang: para. [0050]). ZTE teaches that source donor CU (e.g., CU1 of Huang) could be responsible for triggering the IAB-DU migration procedure and could indicate the IAB node to initiate F1 setup procedure with target donor CU (e.g. CU3 of Huang) (see, ZTE: Section 2.2.1. Here, ZTE teaches that IAB-DU migration may be performed before or after IAB-MT migration and that the source donor CU (i.e., the first IAB CU of the instant application) initiates F1 setup procedure with target donor CU by indicating the IAB-DU node to initiate F1 setup procedure with target donor CU, wherein target IAB CU could be any IAB CU (that is, either a second IAB donor CU, a third IAB donor CU, a fourth IAB donor CU, etc.). Accordingly, the CU3 of Huang could be the target donor CU, wherein the IAB-DU migration is performed from donor CU1 to donor CU3 (see, Huang: par. [0048] [0050]).
During examination, claims are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation consistent with the specification. Claim 1 recites wherein transmitting, to a second IAB donor CU which is a first target IAB donor CU, a handover request message to handover of a mobile IAB mobile termination (MT) from the first IAB donor CU to the second IAB donor CU (which is taught by ZTE. See, further details below in 103 rection.); and transmitting, to a mobile IAB distributed unit (DU), a triggering message for a F1 setup towards a third IAB donor CU which is a second target IAB donor CU, wherein the third IAB donor CU is different from the second IAB donor CU for a migration of the mobile IAB MT (which is taught by ZTE in view of Huang. See, further details below in 103 rection.).
Therefore, the disclosure of ZTE in view of Huang reads on the limitations as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 11, it is suggested to amend the claim to read “…, wherein the third IAB donor CU for a migration of the mobile IAB DU is different from the second IAB donor CU for a migration of the mobile IAB MT, and wherein the mobile IAB DU and the mobile IAB TU are migrated to two different target IAB donor CUs as result.” for clarity of limitations.
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
Claim 5 and Claim 15 each recite “…, wherein the third IAB donor CU is the second target IAB donor CU for a migration of the mobile IAB MT and a migration of the mobile IAB DU, and …” (lines 1-3) and it renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the third IAB donor CU can be for a migration of both the mobile IAB MT and a mobile IAB DU (i.e., both the mobile IAB MT and the mobile IAB DU migrate to the same second target IAB donor CU which is the third IAB donor CU) without reciting any additional limitation(s), when its parent claim implies that the second IAB donor CU is for a migration of the mobile IAB MT and the third IAB donor CU is for a migration of the mobile IAB DU, separately.
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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE (“Further considerations on inter-donor migration”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #112-e, R3-212037, May 17-28, 2021, hereinafter ZTE) in view of Huang et al. (US 2025/0113263 A1, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 1:
ZTE teaches a method performed by a first integrated access backhaul (TAB) donor centralized unit (CU) (see, ZTE: Fig. 3, S-donor CU) in wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a second IAB donor CU (see, ZTE: Fig. 3, T-donor CU) which is a first target IAB donor CU, a handover request message to handover of a mobile IAB mobile termination (MT) from the first IAB donor CU to the second IAB donor CU (see, ZTE: Fig. 3, Step 3, “Source donor CU initiates the migration procedure by sending handover request message for migrating IAB-MT, migrating IAB-DU, each child/descendant IAB-MT/DU and UE to target donor CU.”); and
transmitting, to a mobile IAB distributed unit (DU), a triggering message for a F1 setup towards an IAB donor CU which is a target IAB donor CU (see, ZTE: Section 2.2.1 The trigger of IAB-DU migration, “While in the scenario that traffic needs to be migrated to target path for a long time, IAB-DU migration may be performed before or after IAB-MT migration. In our view, source donor CU could be responsible for triggering the IAB-DU migration procedure. After determining that IAB-DU migration needs to be performed, source donor CU could indicate the IAB node to initiate F1 setup procedure with target donor CU, e.g., via RRCreconfiguration message or via F1AP message.”; Proposal 5, “Source donor CU could trigger the IAB-DU migration procedure by indicating IAB node to initiate F1 setup procedure with target donor CU.” Here, ZTE teaches that IAB-DU migration may be performed before or after IAB-MT migration and that the source donor CU (i.e., the first IAB CU of the instant application) initiates F1 setup procedure with target donor CU by indicating the IAB-DU node to initiate F1 setup procedure with target donor CU, wherein target IAB CU could be any IAB CU (that is, either a second IAB donor CU, a third IAB donor CU, a fourth IAB donor CU, etc.).).
ZTE does not explicit wherein transmitting, to a mobile IAB distributed unit (DU), a triggering message for a F1 setup towards a third IAB donor CU which is a second target IAB donor CU, wherein the third IAB donor CU is different from the second IAB donor CU for a migration of the mobile IAB MT.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches wherein a mobile IAB-DU is migrated from a first donor CU (equivalent to the first IAB CU of the instant application) to a third donor CU (equivalent to the third IAB CU of the instant application) (see, Huang: Fig. 6C and para. [0048], “Referring to FIG. 6C, depicted is a block diagram of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) distributed unit (DU) migrating from a first donor centralized unit (CU1) to a third donor centralized unit (CU3). As depicted, the mobile IAB-DU may migrate from donor CU1 to donor CU3.” Please, note that Fig. 6C contains a typographical error “Donor DU3 (UE Context)” above “Donor DU3”, which should have been written as “Donor CU3 (UE Context)” as correctly stated in para. [0048].). Huang in view of ZTE teaches wherein transmitting, to a mobile IAB distributed unit (DU), a triggering message for a F1 setup towards a third IAB donor CU which is a second target IAB donor CU (see, Huang: para. [0050], “CU1 can initiate the F1 transport migration procedure or update procedure to CU3.”, wherein the CU3 is equivalent to the third IAB donor CU (i.e., the second target IAB donor CU) of the instant application. See, ZTE: ZTE: Section 2.2.1“After determining that IAB-DU migration needs to be performed, source donor CU could indicate the IAB node to initiate F1 setup procedure with target donor CU”), wherein the third IAB donor CU is different from the second IAB donor CU for a migration of the mobile IAB MT (see, Huang: Figs.6A and 6C, and para. [0046], “Referring to FIG. 6A, … the mobile IAB-MT may migrate from donor DU1 which belongs to donor CU1 to donor DU2 which belongs to donor CU2.”, wherein the donor CU2 is equivalent to the second IAB donor CU of the instant application for a migration of the mobile IAB MT.; para. [0048], “Referring to FIG. 6C, … the mobile IAB-DU may migrate from donor CU1 to donor CU3.”, wherein the donor CU3 is equivalent to the third IAB donor CU of the instant application for a migration of the mobile IAB DU.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of ZTE in combination of the teachings of Huang in order for the source donor CU (i.e., CU1) to initiate F1 setup procedure with a second target IAB donor CU (i.e., CU3) for a migration of an IAB-DU from the source donor CU to the second target IAB donor CU, not a first target IAB donor CU (i.e., CU2) (see, Huang: Fig. 6C and para. [0048] [0050]).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, ZTE in view of Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
ZTE further teaches wherein a radio resource control (RRC) connection is established between the mobile IAB MT and the second IAB donor CU (see, ZTE: Fig. 3, Steps 6a-11b, “Step 6-7: … After source donor CU confirm that RRCReconfiguration messages for descendant IAB nodes and UEs have already been delivered successfully, donor DU sends RRCReconfiguration messages to migrating IAB-MT.”; “Step 11a-11b: After accessing to the target cell, migrating IAB-MT sends RRCReconfigurationComplete message to target donor CU.”, wherein the target donor CU of ZTE is equivalent to the second IAB donor CU.), and
Huang in view of ZTE further teaches wherein an F1 connection is established between the mobile IAB DU and the third IAB donor CU (see, Huang: para. [0050], “CU1 can initiate the F1 transport migration procedure or update procedure to CU3.”, wherein the CU3 is equivalent to the third IAB donor CU (i.e., the second target IAB donor CU) of the instant application. ZTE: Fig. 3, Step 13, “Migrating IAB-DU and descendant IAB-DU shall establish F1 connection with target donor CU”, wherein target IAB donor CU could be any IAB CU (that is, either a second IAB donor CU, a third IAB donor CU, a fourth IAB donor CU, etc.). Accordingly, when CU1 initiates an F1 transport migration procedure to CU3, the migrating mobile IAB DU establishes F1 connection with the target donor CU3.).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, ZTE in view of Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein the third IAB donor CU is the second target IAB donor CU for a migration of the mobile IAB MT (see, Huang: Figs. 6A and 6B, and para. [0046], “Referring to FIG. 6A, … the mobile IAB-MT may migrate from donor DU1 which belongs to donor CU1 to donor DU2 which belongs to donor CU2.”; para. [0047], “Referring to FIG. 6B, … mobile IAB-MT may migrate from donor DU2 which belongs to donor CU2 to donor DU3 which belongs to donor CU3.”. Accordingly, the mobile IAB-MT first migrates to the donor CU2 (e.g., the second IAB donor CU of the instant application) from the first donor CU1 (e.g., the first IAB donor CU of the instant application) as recited in claim 1 and then further migrates to the donor CU3 (e.g., the third IAB donor CU, which is the second target IAB donor CU of the instant application) as recited in claim 5) and a migration of the mobile IAB DU (see, Huang: para. [0048], “Referring to FIG. 6C, … the mobile IAB-DU may migrate from donor CU1 to donor CU3.”), and wherein the third IAB donor CU is different from the first IAB donor CU and the second IAB donor CU (see, Huang: Fig. 6C wherein the Donor CU3 (equivalent to the third IAB donor CU of the instant application) is different from the Donor CU1 (equivalent to the first IAB donor CU of the instant application) and the Donor CU2 (equivalent to the second IAB donor CU of the instant application.)).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards a first integrated access backhaul (IAB) donor centralized unit (CU) (see, ZTE: Fig. 3, S-donor CU; Huang: Fig. 6C, Donor CU1) comprising: at least one transceiver (see, ZTE: Fig. 3, transceiver of S-donor CU, not shown; Huang: Fig. 2, BS Transceiver Module 210); at least one processor (see, ZTE: Fig. 3, processor of S-donor CU, not shown; Huang: Fig. 2, BS Processor Module 214) communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver; and at least one memory, communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the first IAB donor to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the first IAB donor CU of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards the first IAB donor CU of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, 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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471