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 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2023/0156505 A1) in view of FUJISHIRO et al (US 2023/0345346 A1, Provisional application No. 63/133,490, filed on January 4, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, WU ‘505 discloses an apparatus (fig. 8, apparatus 800 which includes a processor 806 coupled to transmitting circuitry 804, receiving circuitry 820, section 0134-0139, (see, the access node may set the failure type to indicate a backhaul RLF when the access node initiates the transmission of the failures information message, section 0085, 0114-0115) for transmitting information (see, the access node may set the failure type to indicate a backhaul RLF when the access node initiates the transmission of the failures information message, section 0085, 0114-0115), applicable to a first node (see, the access node, receives signaling message from the parent node indicating a failure in the backhaul link, section 0113, 0115-0117), the apparatus comprising: processor circuitry (fig. 8, transceiver or receiving circuitry 802 which receives failure information message, section 0137-0139, see, the access node which receives a signaling message from a parent node, the signaling message indicating a failures in the backhaul link, section 0074, 0076) configured to connect to a plurality of parent nodes (see, the access node notifies the base station of master cell group (MCG) failure, the failure information which includes a failure type of a backhaul link, section 0071-0072, noted: the failure message is associated with secondary cell group, claim 3, 105-the access node as an IAB node, transmits failure information to parent nodes which forward the failure information message to a base station, section 105-0106, noted: parent nodes 420A and parent node 420B, section 0069), wherein a radio link failure (RLF) occurs in a master cell group (MCG) ( noted: failure at MCG, section 0031, 0044, see, RLF in the link, section 0074, noted: the radio link failure is related to a SCG failure, section 0099-0103); and a transmitter (fig. 8, transceiver or receiving circuitry 802 which receives failure information message, section 0137-0139) configured to transmit failure information to an [[ F1-terminating]] node (noted: the use of F1 protocol for communications between the downstream IAB nodes (i.e., child nodes) and upstream IAB nodes (i.e., parent nodes), section 0048-0052, 0059-0060) of the first node via [[first F1 application protocol (F1AP) ]]signaling (see, encapsulating the failure information message in the uplink information transfer message in relation to RRC message, section 0070, 0089).
WU ‘505 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly disclose: and a transmitter configured to transmit failure information to an F1-terminating node of the first node via first F1 application protocol (F1AP) signaling.
However, FUJISHIRO et al (US 2023/0345346 A1, Provisional application No. 63/133,490, filed on January 4, 2021) from a similar field of endeavor (see, configuring alternative paths in addition to the main path, selection of alternative path from the paths between IAB nodes for rerouting, section 0229-0240, 0246-0254, 0256-0258) discloses: transmitter configured to transmit failure information to an F1-terminating node of the first node via first F1 application protocol (F1AP) signaling see, the IAB donor nodes which receives master cell group (MCG) failures and/or secondary cell group (SCG) failure information, the IAB donor transmits notification signal an RRC message or an F1-Ap message, section 0173-0174, 0177, noted: fig. 22, see, IAB node 300-T which receives radio link failure (RLF) signal and performs rerouting of the data packet on the alternate path, section 0171).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
WU ‘505 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 2, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first F1AP signaling is non-UE associated F1AP signaling.
WU ‘505 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 2, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first F1AP signaling is non-UE associated F1AP signaling (see, the IAB donor nodes which receives master cell group (MCG) failures and/or secondary cell group (SCG) failure information, the IAB donor transmits notification signal an RRC message or an F1-Ap message, section 0173-0174, 0177).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message associated with F1AP on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported of Wu ‘505. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Regarding claim 3, Wu ‘505 as modified FUJISHIRO ‘346 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first F1AP signaling (noted: the use of F1 protocol for communications between the downstream IAB nodes (i.e., child nodes) and upstream IAB nodes (i.e., parent nodes), section 0048-0052, 0059-0060) is used for uplink RRC message transfer (see, encapsulating the failure information message in the uplink information transfer message in relation to RRC message, section 0070, 0089).
Regarding claim 4, Wu ‘505 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first node is not configured with a split signaling radio bearer 1 (SRB1) and a split signaling radio bearer 3 (SRB3) ( noted: in the IAB system, split SRSB (e.g., SRSB1 or SRB3) may not be supported, section 0066).
Regarding claim 5, Wu ‘505 as modified by FUJISHIRO ‘346 the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first node is dual-connected to the same donor node or different donor nodes (fig. 1, dual-connectivity wireless system 100 that includes UE 30 connected to multiple base stations (BS 10A, BS 10B), section 0020-0021, noted: the base stations are IAB donor nodes that are dual-connectivity capable, section 0048, 0055-0057), an F1-C connection to which the first F1AP signaling belongs passes a secondary cell group (SCG) link, and the failure information is MCG failure information (FUJISHIRO ‘346, see, the IAB donor nodes which receives master cell group (MCG) failures and/or secondary cell group (SCG) failure information, the IAB donor transmits notification signal an RRC message or an F1-Ap message, section 0173-0174, 0177), WU discloses reporting SCG or MCG failure, section 0060-0061).
Regarding claim 11, WU ‘505 discloses an apparatus (fig. 8, apparatus 800 which includes a processor 806 coupled to transmitting circuitry 804, receiving circuitry 820, section 0134-0139, (see, the access node may set the failure type to indicate a backhaul RLF when the access node initiates the transmission of the failures information message, section 0085, 0114-0115) for transmitting information (see, the access node which operates as IAB-MT notifies failure information to notify BS of MCG failure, section 0072, the access node may set the failures type to indicate a backhaul RLF when the access node initiates the transmission of the failures information message, section 0085, 0114-0115), applicable to a first node (see, the access node may set the failures type to indicate a backhaul RLF when the access node initiates the transmission of the failures information message, section 0085, 0114-0115), the apparatus comprising: a receiver (fig. 8, transceiver or receiving circuitry 802 which receives failure information message, section 0137-0139, see, the access node which receives a signaling message from a parent node, the signaling message indicating a failure in the backhaul link, section 0074, 0076) configured to receive (see, the access node which receives a signaling message from a parent node, the signaling message indicating a failures in the backhaul link, section 0074, 0076) second-type backhaul radio link failure indication information (noted: failure type set that indicates a list of four failure types, section 078-0079, see, backhaul failure on the backhaul link between IAB node 120 and IAB node 110, section 0062-0064, 0074-0075) transmitted by a parent node to which a first cell group corresponds (see, RLF in the link, section 0074, see, the failure information message is associated with a master cell group link, section 024, 0031 noted: the radio link failure is related to a SCG failure, section 0099-0103, the failure information which includes a failure type of a backhaul link, section 0071-0072); and a transmitter (fig. 8, apparatus 800 which includes transmitting circuitry 804, section 0134-0139) configured to transmit a first RRC message (see, RRC message for transmitting to the parent node, section 0089) to a network device connected (see, the access node notifies the base station of master cell group (MCG) failure, the failure information which includes a failure type of a backhaul link, section 0071-0072, noted: the failure message is associated with secondary cell group, claim 3, 105-the access node as an IAB node, transmits failure information to parent nodes which forwards the failure information message to a base station, section 105-0106) to a second cell group (noted: the failure message is associated with secondary cell group, claim 3, section 0105-0107, 0114-the failure message in relation to secondary cell group (SCG) failure) via a signaling radio bearer corresponding to the second cell group (see, SRB3 to report MCG failure when a radio link failure (RLF) on MCG link, section 0029, 0030-0031) or transmit a first RRC message to [[an F1-terminating node via first F1AP]] signaling (see, the access node transmit the failures information message which may be encapsulated in RRC message, UL information transfer message on SRB3, section 0089, noted: the failure information which includes further information indicating two nodes which terminate the backhaul link, section 00085).
WU ‘505 discloses all the claim limitations in the above rejection but fails to explicitly discloses: transmit a first RRC message to an F1-terminating node via first F1AP signaling.
However, FUJISHIRO et al (US 2023/0345346 A1, Provisional application No. 63/133,490, filed on January 4, 2021) from a similar field of endeavor (see, configuring alternative paths in addition to the main path, selection of alternative path from the paths between IAB nodes for rerouting, section 0229-0240, 0246-0254, 0256-0258) discloses: transmit a first RRC message to an F1-terminating node via first F1AP signaling (see, the IAB donor nodes which receives master cell group (MCG) failures and/or secondary cell group (SCG) failure information, the IAB donor transmits notification signal an RRC message or an F1-Ap message, section 0173-0174, 0177, noted: fig. 22, see, IAB node 300-T which receives radio link failure (RLF) signal and performs rerouting of the data packet on the alternate path, section 0171).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message associated with F1AP on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported of Wu ‘505. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Regarding claim 12, WU ‘505 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the transmitter transmits the first RRC message by migrating the first RRC message via a signaling radio bearer corresponding to the first cell group to a signaling radio bearer corresponding to the second cell group (see, the master node that decoded MCG failure information message, and may determine to change or release the failed MCG by encapsulating an RRC reconfiguration message or RRC release message into RRC message and transmits the message to the UE via SRBR3, section 0044, 0090-0091).
Regarding claim 13, WU ‘505 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the signaling radio bearer corresponding to the first cell group is not configured as a split signaling radio bearer (section 0025-0031, noted: in the IAB system, split SRSB (e.g., SRSB1 or SRB3) may not be supported, section 0066).
Regarding claim 14, WU ‘505 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the first RRC message (see, failure information message into an RRC message, section 0043) comprises at least one of measurement information, failure information (see, the failure information message which maybe encapsulated in another RRC message, section 0089), assistance information and reconfiguration completion information; or, the RRC message comprises NAS information or non-3GPP dedicated information.
Regarding claim 15, WU ‘505 discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the first RRC message is carried in a second RRC message (see, the failure information message which maybe encapsulated in another RRC message, section 0089).
Wu ‘505 fails to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 16, the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the first F1AP signaling is non-UE associated F1AP signaling.
However, FUJISHIRO ‘346 from a similar field of endeavor discloses: Regarding claim 16, the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the first F1AP signaling is non-UE associated F1AP signaling (see, the IAB donor nodes which receives master cell group (MCG) failures and/or secondary cell group (SCG) failure information, the IAB donor transmits notification signal an RRC message or an F1-Ap message, section 0173-0174, 0177).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported of Wu ‘505. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Regarding claim 17, WU ‘505 as modified by FUJISHIRO ‘346 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the first F1AP signaling (noted: the use of F1 protocol for communications between the downstream IAB nodes (i.e., child nodes) and upstream IAB nodes (i.e., parent nodes), section 0048-0052, 0059-0060) is used for uplink RRC message transfer (see, encapsulating the failure information message in the uplink information transfer message in relation to RRC message, section 0070, 0089).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported of Wu ‘505. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Regarding claim 18, Wu ‘005 as modified by FUJISHIRO ‘346 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the first F1AP signaling further comprises first indication information (see, the IAB-CU of the IAB donor node transmits notification to the IAB-DU of the IAB node 300 using an RRC message or F1-AP message, section 0173-0174), the first indication information being used to indicate whether the F1-terminating node is a message destination node (see, the IAB-CU of the IAB donor node transmits notification to the IAB-DU of the IAB node 300 using n RRC message or F1-AP message, section 0173-0174),.
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported of Wu ‘505. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Regarding claim 19, Wu ‘005 as modified by FUJISHIRO ‘346 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein first F1AP signaling to which different types of F1-terminating nodes correspond is different (fig. 3, see, IAB node 150A, IAB node 150B and DUs, the F1 interface which connects the UC and DUs of the IAB node, section 0050, 0052).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported of Wu ‘505. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Regarding claim 20, Wu ‘005 discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the second-type backhaul radio link failure indication information (noted: second failure type is disclosed among the four failure types with respect to the backhaul, section 0077-0078) is transmitted by the parent node when a failure of a backhaul radio link is detected by the parent node (see, the access node which receives a signaling message from a parent node, the signaling message indicating a failures in the backhaul link, section 0074, 0076).
Claims 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2023/0156505 A1) in view of YLMAZ et al (US 2020/0351968 A1, IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Wu ‘505 discloses an apparatus (fig. 8, apparatus 800 which includes a processor 806 coupled to transmitting circuitry 804, receiving circuitry 820, section 0134-0139) for processing information (see, the access node may set the failure type to indicate a backhaul RLF when the access node initiates the transmission of the failures information message, section 0085, 0114-0115), applicable to a first node (see, the access node, receives signaling message from the parent node indicating a failure in the backhaul link, section 0113, 0115-0117), the apparatus comprising: a first receiver (fig. 8, transceiver or receiving circuitry 802 which receives failure information message, section 0137-0139, see, the access node which receives a signaling message from a parent node, the signaling message indicating a failures in the backhaul link, section 0074, 0076) configured to receive second-type backhaul radio link failure (noted: second failure type is disclosed among the four failure types, section 0077-0078) indication information (see, the failure information that includes a failure type of a backhaul link, section 0005-0006, 0072, 0076-0077) transmitted by a parent node to which a first cell group corresponds (see, RLF in the link, section 0074, see, the access node notifies the base station of master cell group (MCG) failure, the failure information which includes a failure type of a backhaul link, section 0071-0072, noted: the radio link failure is related to a SCG failure, section 0099-0103); and second processor circuitry configured (fig. 8, see, processor 806 works in coordination with the transmitting circuitry 804 and receiving circuitry 802, performs fast MCG link recovery, section 0137-0139) to set a primary path (see, active routes of the IAB nodes, section 0003, noted: the link from which RLF is detected on).
Wu ‘505 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly disclose: second processor circuitry configured to set a primary path of a first signaling radio bearer to be referring to a second cell group different from the first cell group when the first signaling radio bearer of the first node is configured as a split signaling radio bearer and a primary path of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the first signaling radio bearer refers to the first cell group.
However, YILMAZ et al (US 2020/0351968 A1) from a similar field of endeavor discloses: second processor circuitry (fig. 9, see, the network node includes processing circuitry 970 coupled RF circuitry 992 configured to perform transmitting operations and receiving operations, section 0172-0182, fig. 9, processing circuitry 970 may comprises a combination of one or more processors, section 0175) configured to set a primary path (see, the master node that communicates with the UE using the MCG leg 308 of the split SRB and the secondary node communicates with the UE via SCG leg 312 of the split SRB, section 0103-0105) of a first signaling radio bearer to be referring to a second cell group different from the first cell group (see, upon failure, failure information message to the master node via the SCG leg of the split SRB1, section 0109-0112) when the first signaling radio bearer of the first node (see, message via the a split SRB1 to the master node, section 0104-0105) is configured as a split signaling radio bearer (see, the master node sends, via SCG leg of the split SRB1, second message to the UE, section 01409-0112) and a primary path of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity (noted: the master node that is coupled to the secondary node, includes PDCP, section 0103) of the first signaling radio bearer refers to the first cell group (section 0109-0111, upon failure (RLF) at MCG, the UE then sends first message via the SCG leg of the split SRB, the master node handoffs of the UE from the master node secondary node).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the method of failure handling and sending failure message via signaling radio bearer as taught by YLMAZ ‘968 into the backhaul radio link failure (RFL) and failures recovery of Wu ‘505. The motivation would have been to provide RRC reconfiguration based on failure message.
Regarding claim 8, Wu et al (US 2023/0156505 A1) discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the second-type backhaul radio link failure indication information is transmitted by the parent node when a failure of a backhaul radio link is detected by the parent node (see, the access node 420C which receives a signaling message indicating a failures in the backhaul link between the parent node 420a and access node 420C, section 0072-0074).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2023/0156505 A1) in view of YLMAZ et al (US 2020/0351968 A1, IDS) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of KIIM et al (US 2022/0322418 A1).
The combination of WU ‘505 and YLMAZ ‘968 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 7, the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first signaling radio bearer of the first node is not configured with PDCP-duplication.
However, KIM ‘022 from a similar field of endeavor (see, reporting radio link failure to the SCH or to the MCG via the SCG by transmitting an RRS message via split SRB1 or SRB3, section 0775-0076, 0644-0668) discloses: Regarding claim 7, the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first signaling radio bearer of the first node is not configured with PDCP-duplication (see, deactivated PDCP duplication, section 0811-0812, noted: when the MCG or SCG is suspended or deactivated, RRC connection re-establishment is performed, section 0775-0776).
In view of the above, it 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 to modify the alternative path rerouting based on failure message on the backhaul of Wu ‘505 and YLMAZ ‘968 with reconfiguring or modifying the of a cell group in relation to SCG or MCG based on an indicator as taught by KIM ‘418. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2023/0156505 A1) in view of YLMAZ et al (US 2020/0351968 A1, IDS) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view FUJISHIRO et al (US 2023/0345346 A1, Provisional application No. 63/133,490, filed on January 4, 2021)
The combination of WU ‘505 and YLMAZ ‘968 discloses all the claim limitations (Wu, see, master cell group (MCG) link recovery in response to RLF in the MCG link, section 0086-0087) but fails to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 9, Wu ‘505 discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, the apparatus further comprising: a second receiver configured to receive third-type backhaul radio link failure indication information transmitted by the parent node; and third processor circuitry configured to set the primary path to be referring to the first cell group .
Regarding claim 10, Wu ‘505 discloses the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the third-type backhaul radio link failure indication information is transmitted by the parent node when backhaul RLF recovery is successful.
However, FUJISHIRO et al (US 2023/0345346 A1, Provisional application No. 63/133,490, filed on January 4, 2021) from a similar field of endeavor (see, configuring alternative paths in addition to the main path, selection of alternative path from the paths between IAB nodes for rerouting, section 0229-0240, 0246-0254, 0256-0258) discloses:
Regarding claim 9, the apparatus according to claim 6, the apparatus further comprising: a second receiver (fig. 9, see, receiver 211 and receiver 221 within the base station/gNB 200) configured to receive third-type backhaul radio link failure indication information transmitted by the parent node (see, Type 3 notification indicating that IAB node has recovered from BH RLF, section 0115); and third processor circuitry (fig. 9, processing circuitry 970 may comprises a combination of one or more processors, section 0175) configured to set the primary path to be referring to the first cell group (see, local rerouting on the alternative path in relation to a failure, section 0119, 0120-0121, noted: master cell group (MCG) failure information, section 0173).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into combined method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported of Wu ‘505, YILMAZ ‘968. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Regarding claim 10, discloses the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the third-type backhaul radio link failure indication information is transmitted by the parent node (see, the parent node transmits flow control feedback message, section 0099) when backhaul RLF recovery is successful (see, Type 3 notification indicating that IAB node has recovered from backhaul (BH) radio link failure (RLF), section 0115).
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the alternative path rerouting based on failure message on the backhaul link as taught by FUJISHIRO ‘346 into combined method and apparatus failure in the backhaul link when multi-connectivity is supported of Wu ‘505, YILMAZ ‘968. The motivation would have been to provide continuous transmission by rerouting on alternative path in response to failure notification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Teyeb et al (US 2023/0413149 A1) discloses sending of backhaul radio link failures (RLF) indication when an IAB node detects a backhaul radio link failure to its descendant nodes, connection re-establishment to another parent node (section 0093, 0097).
HWANG et al (US 2023/0292211 A1) discloses IAB nodes that receives failures recovery notification from a parent node (section 0007-0025, 0160) and after the radio link failure, handover to a target cell or routing a different path other than a path via the parent IAB node (section 0021-0025, 0193, 0199-0202, 0206).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANDAL ELPENORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3123. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6 pm M-F.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 571 272-3182. 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.
/CANDAL ELPENORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights