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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 08/31/2026.
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 08/31/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related solely to newly added limitations addressed in the instant Office Action with previously identified prior art, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 each recite that the “OAM system is a management entity distinct from the donor node and the plural IAB nodes.” Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 depend from the respective independent claims and include the same limitation.
The originally filed disclosure supports use of OAM in connection with cell-ID configuration. For example, the specification states that “the cell ID is configured with Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for the gNB-DU” and that cell IDs available for the IAB node are configured for the IAB node “with OAM” before the disclosed operation. The specification also discloses that the available cell IDs may be a list of cell IDs.
However, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the more particular claimed relationship that an OAM system is a management entity distinct from the donor node and the plural IAB nodes. The system architecture identifies the 5GC, gNB/donor nodes, IAB nodes, UE, AMF, and UPF, but does not identify, depict or describe an OAM system as an entity separate from the donor node and IAB nodes.
Further, the disclosure states that “OAM or the gNB-DI has the authority to determine the cell ID”. This statement describes OAM’s possible role in cell-ID determination, but does not describe OAM as a separate management plane entity or otherwise establish that OAM is distinct from the gNB-DU/donor node.
Applicant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand an OAM system, based on 3GPP architecture, to be an independent management plane entity separate from RAN nodes. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Although such an understanding may be associated with particular external 3GPP architecture materials, the application as filed does not identify OAM as a separate management entity, incorporate that asserted architectural relationship, or otherwise describe the now-claimed distinction between the OAM system, the donor node, and the plural IAB nodes. An amendment must be supported by the application as filed; the written description requirement is not satisfied merely because the added relationship may have been known in the art or may be derived from the external standards.
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected under 112(a).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akl et al. (US 2024/0106796, “Akl”) in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0073768, “Liu”) and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0073762, “Liu762”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Akl unless otherwise mentioned.
Akl comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a communication control method used in a cellular communication system, the communication control method comprising:
configuring a list of first cell IDs usable in a first mobile Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) node ([0086] “Some techniques and apparatuses described herein provide dynamic configuration of updated identifiers, such as transport network layer information, an IAB node DU identifier, and/or a cell identifier, of an IAB node based at least in part on various changes in an IAB network.” See Fig. 4 for an OAM system. For more clarification, it will be discussed in view of Liu.), wherein the list of first cell IDs is configured by an Operations, Administrations, and Maintenance (OAM) system (This will be discussed in view of Liu.);
determining, by a donor node serving plural IAB nodes including the first mobile IAB node, a second cell ID from among the list of first cell IDs configured on the donor node (This will be discussed in view of Liu.), the second cell ID not colliding with cell IDs of the plural IAB nodes other than the first mobile IAB node ([0088] “a gNB-DU ID for IAB Node 3's DU and IAB Node 5's DU may need to be unique at IAB Donor CU 2, and thus may or may not be updated. Still further, the NR cell global identities (NCGIs) of cells served by IAB Node 3's DU and IAB Node 5's DU may be configured with cell identifiers corresponding to IAB Donor CU 2.”); and
receiving, by the first mobile IAB node from the donor node, an F1 protocol message, the F1 protocol message including the second cell ID determined by the donor node to be used by the first mobile IAB node (This will be discussed in view of Liu.), the F1 protocol message being transmitted using a F1 protocol configured to connect the donor node as a Central Unit (CU) with the plural IAB nodes as Distributed Units (DUs) served by the CU ([0082] “A control interface connection, such as an F1-connection (F1-C) may be established between an IAB donor CU and each of the IAB donor DUs and IAB node DUs associated with the IAB donor CU. An F1-application protocol (AP) or stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) connection may be used to exchange control plane (CP) messages between the IAB donor CU, the IAB node DUs”),
wherein the OAM system is a management entity distinct from the donor node and the plural IAB node (This will be discussed in view of Liu762.).
It is noted that while disclosing cell identifiers, Akl does not specifically teach about determining a cell ID and receiving the cell ID. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Liu as follows;
configuring a list of first cell IDs usable in a first mobile Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) node ([Liu, 0098] “the IAB node may obtain the first candidate cell identifier from an Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM) network element before sending the first candidate cell identifier to the source IAB donor-CU.”), wherein the list of first cell IDs is configured by an Operations, Administrations, and Maintenance (OAM) system ([Liu, 0102] “the source IAB donor-CU may decide to configure one or more of the first candidate cell identifiers for the sub node of the IAB node and/or the terminal connected to the IAB node, where the second candidate cell identifier includes at least one of the first candidate cell identifiers.”).
determining, by a donor node serving plural IAB nodes including the first mobile IAB node, a second cell ID from among a list of cell IDs configured by the donor node ([Liu, 0133 and Fig. 5] “Step 501: Performing an F1 connection establishment process between the DU of the IAB node 1 and the target IAB donor-CU. Through this process, the target IAB donor-CU allocates a first candidate cell ID to the IAB node 1”, and [Liu, 0134 and Fig. 5] “the first candidate cell ID may include IDs of one or more candidate cells.”, and [Liu, 0102] “the source IAB donor-CU may decide to configure one or more of the first candidate cell identifiers for the sub node of the IAB node and/or the terminal connected to the IAB node, where the second candidate cell identifier includes at least one of the first candidate cell identifiers. For example, the first candidate cell identifiers include a cell identifier 1, a cell identifier 2 and a cell identifier 3; and the second candidate cell identifiers may include the cell identifier 1, cell identifier 2 and cell identifier 3, or may include only a part of the three cell identifiers, for example, include the cell identifier 1 and cell identifier 2, or include only the cell identifier 1.”);
receiving, by the first mobile IAB node from the donor node, an F1 protocol message, the F1 protocol message including the second cell ID determined by the donor node to be used by the first mobile IAB node ([Liu, 0096] “the IAB node may establish an F1 connection with the target IAB donor-CU, and obtain the first candidate cell identifier from the target IAB donor-CU through the F1 connection establishment process with the target IAB donor-CU”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Akl by using the features of Liu in order to improve deployment flexibility such that “to send the candidate cell identifier of the IAB node under the target IAB donor-CU to the source IAB donor-CU of the IAB node, and the source IAB donor-CU transmits the candidate cell identifier to the sub node of the IAB node and/or the terminal connected to the IAB node.” [Liu, 0006].
It is noted that while disclosing cell identifiers, Akl does not specifically teach about distinct OAM. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Liu762 as follows;
the OAM system is a management entity distinct from the donor node and the plural IAB node ([Liu762, 0085] “The IP address of the IAB node in FIG. 5 may be allocated by the donor DU or a network management device to the IAB node. The IP address of the donor CU may also be allocated by the network management device. In this application, the network management device may include an operation, administration, and maintenance (operation, administration, and maintenance, OAM) network element”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Akl by using the features of Liu762 in order to improve deployment flexibility such that “a flexible and convenient backhaul solution also needs to be designed.” [Liu762, 0003].
Regarding claim 3, it is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a first mobile IAB node; a donor node” (See Fig. 4, 5, and 6), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it is a mobile IAB claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a controller circuitry”, “a receiver circuitry” (See Fig. 2), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, it is a non-transitory claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “storage medium storing a program for causing a computer” (See Fig. 2 and [0059]), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6 and 8, the communication control method according to claim 1, the cellular communication system according to claim 3, the mobile IAB node according to claim 5, and the non-transitory CRM according to claim 7, respectively, wherein the first cell ID and the second cell are a physical cell ID (PCI) ([Liu762, 0113] “the IAB node 3 derives the key A2 by using the key A1 and a physical cell identifier (physical cell identifier, PCI) of a target cell (the target cell is a cell to which the donor base station 1 indicates that the IAB node 3 needs to be handed over) that is of the donor base station 2”).
Claim(s) 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akl et al. (US 2024/0106796, “Akl”) in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0073768, “Liu”) and Liu et al. (US 2024/0073762, “Liu762”), and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/02842645, “Xu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Akl unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 9, it is a chipset claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a chipset for a mobile IAB node” (This will be discussed in view of Xu.), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
It is noted that while disclosing cell IDs, Akl does not specifically teach about a chipset. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Xu as follows;
a chip for a mobile IAB node ([Xu, 0087] “As shown, the UE 106 may include a system on chip (SOC) 300, which may include portions for various purposes. For example, as shown, the SOC 300 may include processor(s) 302 which may execute program instructions for the UE 106”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Akl by using Xu in order to improve functionalities such that “methods for improving Multicast and Broadcast Services (MBS) communications through service continuity during handover” [Xu, 0005].
Regarding claim 10, the chipset according to claim 9, wherein the cell ID is a physical cell ID (PCI) ([Liu762, 0113] “the IAB node 3 derives the key A2 by using the key A1 and a physical cell identifier (physical cell identifier, PCI) of a target cell (the target cell is a cell to which the donor base station 1 indicates that the IAB node 3 needs to be handed over) that is of the donor base station 2”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights