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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered on November 12, 2025 for patent application 18/364,252 filed on August 2, 2023.
Claims 9-22 are pending.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 22 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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 22 recite the limitation “the second cell.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 11, 14, 18 and 22 recite the limitation “the mobile IAB donor node.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2026/0006525).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng discloses a method performed by a target donor node in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a source donor node, a handover request message including a mobile integrated access backhaul (IAB) node indication (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], element 732); identifying that a handover is for a mobile IAB node based on the mobile IAB node indication (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], elements 734 and 736); and transmitting, to the source donor node, a handover request acknowledgement message for handover of the mobile IAB node (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], element 738).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng discloses a target donor node in a wireless communication system, the target donor node comprising: a transceiver, and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to: receive, from a source donor node, a handover request message including a mobile integrated access backhaul (IAB) node indication (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], element 732), identify that a handover is for a mobile IAB node based on the mobile IAB node indication (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], elements 734 and 736), and transmit, to the source donor node, a handover request acknowledgement message for a handover of the mobile IAB node (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], element 738).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng discloses a method performed by a source donor node in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: transmitting, to a target donor node, a handover request message including a mobile integrated access backhaul (IAB) node indication (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], element 732); and receiving, from the target donor node, a handover request acknowledgement message for a handover of the mobile IAB node (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], element 738), wherein the mobile IAB node indication is associated with a handover for the mobile IAB node (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], elements 734 and 736).
Regarding claim 20, Cheng discloses a source donor node in a wireless communication system, the target donor node comprising: a transceiver, and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to: transmit, to a target donor node, a handover request message including a mobile integrated access backhaul (IAB) node indication (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], element 732), and receive, from the target donor node, a handover request acknowledgement message for a handover of the mobile IAB node (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], element 738), wherein the mobile IAB node indication is associated with a handover for the mobile IAB node (Figs. 7A, para. [0118], elements 734 and 736).
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.
Claims 10, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2026/0006525) in view of Hampel et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0279181).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the handover request acknowledgement message includes a first radio resource control (RRC) message for a migration of the mobile IAB node (para. [0118]) and a second RRC message for a handover of at least one user equipment (UE) connected with a first cell (para. [0101]), but it could be argued that Cheng does not explicitly disclose wherein the first RRC message includes a delayed RRC reconfiguration indication corresponding to at least one UE. However, in analogous art, Hampel discloses that a handover command (e.g., RRC reconfiguration message) is generated based on a handover request ACK to trigger a source base station to send the handover command to a UE, and sending the handover command is intentionally delayed for a defined amount of time (paras. [0125] and [0165]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to allow for the first RRC message to include a delayed RRC reconfiguration indication corresponding to at least one UE. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the delay indication to be properly handled.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the handover request acknowledgement message includes a first radio resource control (RRC) message for a migration of the mobile IAB node (para. [0118]) and a second RRC message for a handover of at least one user equipment (UE) connected with a first cell (para. [0101]), but it could be argued that Cheng does not explicitly disclose wherein the first RRC message includes a delayed RRC reconfiguration indication corresponding to at least one UE. However, in analogous art, Hampel discloses that a handover command (e.g., RRC reconfiguration message) is generated based on a handover request ACK to trigger a source base station to send the handover command to a UE, and sending the handover command is intentionally delayed for a defined amount of time (paras. [0125] and [0165]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to allow for the first RRC message to include a delayed RRC reconfiguration indication corresponding to at least one UE. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the delay indication to be properly handled.
Regarding claim 21, Cheng discloses the source donor node of claim 20 wherein the handover request acknowledgement message includes a first radio resource control (RRC) message for a migration of the mobile IAB node (para. [0118]) and a second RRC message for a handover of at least one user equipment (UE) connected with a first cell (para. [0101]), but it could be argued that Cheng does not explicitly disclose wherein the first RRC message includes a delayed RRC reconfiguration indication corresponding to at least one UE. However, in analogous art, Hampel discloses that a handover command (e.g., RRC reconfiguration message) is generated based on a handover request ACK to trigger a source base station to send the handover command to a UE, and sending the handover command is intentionally delayed for a defined amount of time (paras. [0125] and [0165]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to allow for the first RRC message to include a delayed RRC reconfiguration indication corresponding to at least one UE. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the delay indication to be properly handled.
Claims 11, 14, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2026/0006525) in view of Hampel et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0279181) and VIVO, Discussion on Migration and Service Interruption, R2-2107862, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #115-e, 06 August 2021 (hereinafter Vivo).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cheng and Hampel discloses the method of claim 10, but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the second RRC message is transmitted from the mobile IAB node to the at least one UE, if the mobile IAB donor node turns on the second cell operated by the target donor node. However, in analogous art, Vivo discloses that after migration of the TAB node (migrating IAB node), the target cell (cell 2) created by the IAB node is active; the UE receives the RRC reconfiguration message in the cell 2; the UE performs the handover as soon as the RRC reconfiguration message is received (Fig. 3, pages 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng and Hampel to allow for the second RRC message to be transmitted from the mobile IAB node to the at least one UE, if the mobile IAB donor node turns on the second cell operated by the target donor node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the standards outlined in the third generation partnership project (3GPP) to be properly implemented.
Regarding claim 14, Cheng discloses target donor node of claim 13, wherein the handover request acknowledgement message includes a first radio resource control (RRC) message for a migration of the mobile IAB node (para. [0118]) and a second RRC message for a handover of at least one user equipment (UE) connected with a first cell (para. [0101]), but it could be argued that Cheng does not explicitly disclose wherein the first RRC message includes a delayed RRC reconfiguration indication corresponding to at least one UE. However, in analogous art, Hampel discloses that a handover command (e.g., RRC reconfiguration message) is generated based on a handover request ACK to trigger a source base station to send the handover command to a UE, and sending the handover command is intentionally delayed for a defined amount of time (paras. [0125] and [0165]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to allow for the first RRC message to include a delayed RRC reconfiguration indication corresponding to at least one UE. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the delay indication to be properly handled.
It could be argued that the combination of Cheng and Hampel does not explicitly disclose wherein the second RRC message is transmitted from the mobile IAB node to the at least one UE, if the mobile IAB donor node turns on the second cell operated by the target donor node. However, in analogous art, Vivo discloses that after migration of the TAB node (migrating IAB node), the target cell (cell 2) created by the IAB node is active; the UE receives the RRC reconfiguration message in the cell 2; the UE performs the handover as soon as the RRC reconfiguration message is received (Fig. 3, pages 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng and Hampel to allow for the second RRC message to be transmitted from the mobile IAB node to the at least one UE, if the mobile IAB donor node turns on the second cell operated by the target donor node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the standards outlined in the third generation partnership project (3GPP) to be properly implemented.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Cheng and Hampel discloses the method of claim 17, but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the second RRC message is transmitted from the mobile IAB node to the at least one UE, if the mobile IAB donor node turns on the second cell operated by the target donor node. However, in analogous art, Vivo discloses that after migration of the TAB node (migrating IAB node), the target cell (cell 2) created by the IAB node is active; the UE receives the RRC reconfiguration message in the cell 2; the UE performs the handover as soon as the RRC reconfiguration message is received (Fig. 3, pages 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng and Hampel to allow for the second RRC message to be transmitted from the mobile IAB node to the at least one UE, if the mobile IAB donor node turns on the second cell operated by the target donor node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the standards outlined in the third generation partnership project (3GPP) to be properly implemented.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Cheng and Hampel discloses the source donor node of claim 21, but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the second RRC message is transmitted from the mobile IAB node to the at least one UE, if the mobile IAB donor node turns on the second cell operated by the target donor node. However, in analogous art, Vivo discloses that after migration of the TAB node (migrating IAB node), the target cell (cell 2) created by the IAB node is active; the UE receives the RRC reconfiguration message in the cell 2; the UE performs the handover as soon as the RRC reconfiguration message is received (Fig. 3, pages 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng and Hampel to allow for the second RRC message to be transmitted from the mobile IAB node to the at least one UE, if the mobile IAB donor node turns on the second cell operated by the target donor node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the standards outlined in the third generation partnership project (3GPP) to be properly implemented.
Claims 12, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2026/0006525) in view of ZTE et al., Considerations on topology adaptation enhancements, R2-2009387, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #112-e, 23 October 2020 (hereinafter ZTE).
Regarding claim 12, the Cheng discloses the method of claim 9, but it could be argued that Cheng does not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, from the mobile IAB node, a third RRC message indicating success for a random access to the second cell; and transmitting, to the mobile IAB node, a fourth RRC message including a second cell indication used for the mobile IAB node in the second cell. However, in analogous art, ZTE discloses that after accessing to the target cell, the migrating IAB MT sends an RRC reconfiguration complete message to the target donor CU; the migrating IAB MT can obtain multiple target cells’ handover configuration and handover execution condition information (pages 4 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to allow for receiving, from the mobile IAB node, a third RRC message indicating success for a random access to the second cell, and transmitting, to the mobile IAB node, a fourth RRC message including a second cell indication used for the mobile IAB node in the second cell. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for migration and handover processes to be handled properly under a wider variety of circumstances.
Regarding claim 15, the Cheng discloses the target donor node of claim 13, but it could be argued that Cheng does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller further configured to: receive, from the mobile IAB node, a third RRC message indicating success for a random access to the second cell, and transmit, to the mobile IAB node, a fourth RRC message including a second cell indication used for the mobile IAB node in the second cell. However, in analogous art, ZTE discloses that after accessing to the target cell, the migrating IAB MT sends an RRC reconfiguration complete message to the target donor CU; the migrating IAB MT can obtain multiple target cells’ handover configuration and handover execution condition information (pages 4 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to allow for receiving, from the mobile IAB node, a third RRC message indicating success for a random access to the second cell, and transmitting, to the mobile IAB node, a fourth RRC message including a second cell indication used for the mobile IAB node in the second cell. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for migration and handover processes to be handled properly under a wider variety of circumstances.
Regarding claim 19, the Cheng discloses the method of claim 16, but it could be argued that Cheng does not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, from the mobile IAB node, a third RRC message indicating success for a random access to the second cell; and transmitting, to the mobile IAB node, a fourth RRC message including a second cell indication used for the mobile IAB node in the second cell. However, in analogous art, ZTE discloses that after accessing to the target cell, the migrating IAB MT sends an RRC reconfiguration complete message to the target donor CU; the migrating IAB MT can obtain multiple target cells’ handover configuration and handover execution condition information (pages 4 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to allow for receiving, from the mobile IAB node, a third RRC message indicating success for a random access to the second cell, and transmitting, to the mobile IAB node, a fourth RRC message including a second cell indication used for the mobile IAB node in the second cell. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for migration and handover processes to be handled properly under a wider variety of circumstances.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Cheng.
Conclusion
Claims 9-22 are rejected.
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 Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 pm.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 February 2, 2026