DETAILED ACTION
This application is responsive to application #18/430,213 filed 02/01/2024. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 2-20 have been added via a preliminary amendment filed 02/22/2024. Claims 11-20 are subject to examination.
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 § 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 1, 11, 12, and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, the independent claims appears to be claiming a message being sent from donor to node as the limitations recite “wherein the message comprises an indication to discard a corresponding RRC message”. This limitation appears to indicate a command message for discarding (an action step), however, the dependent claim limitations appear to claim that the message transmission is actually in the uplink and rather is a delivery status of the RRC message that is being sent back to the donor. Accordingly, it is unclear what direction of transmission the message is being sent given that the independent claims and dependent claims contradict each other.
Claims 2-10, 14-20 are also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (Xu hereafter) (US2024/0215098 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches, a method comprising:
sending, by a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) entity to a second IAB entity, a message related to radio resource control (RRC) message delivery, wherein the message comprises an indication to discard a corresponding RRC message. (Xu; the donor CU 101 may initiate a procedure, for example, an F1AP procedure, towards the node 121, to inform the node 121 to discard its buffered RRC message for the node 122, for example by transmitting a message 302 (for example, an F1AP message) to the node 121. For example, the message 302 may include a configuration including information associated with an indication for the node 121 to discard buffered RRC message, Par. 0102 & …for simplicity and clarity, not all messages or signaling are illustrated in the drawings. For example, a response message from the node 121 to the donor CU 101 after receiving the message 201 is not illustrated in FIG. 2, Par. 0087)
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of:
the first IAB entity comprises an IAB node or an IAB donor distributed unit (DU); (Xu; Fig. 1)
the second IAB entity comprises an IAB donor; (Xu; Fig. 1) or
the message comprises a RRC message delivery status to indicate that a buffered RRC message is discarded at the IAB node or IAB donor DU. [Examiner Note: Unselected Alternative claim language]
Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches, the method of claim 2,
wherein the RRC message delivery status includes an identifier of the RRC message which triggers the RRC message delivery status.
[The Examiner contends that this limitation depends on unselected features of its parent claim and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as its parent.]
Regarding claims 4, Xu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of:
the first IAB entity comprises an IAB node or an IAB donor DU; (Xu; Fig. 1)
the second IAB entity comprises an IAB donor; (Xu; Fig. 1) or
the message comprises a message discard request to indicate to the IAB donor that a buffered RRC message needs to be discarded at the IAB node or IAB donor DU. [Examiner Note: Unselected Alternative claim language]
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches, the method of claim 4,
wherein the message discard request includes an identifier of the RRC message which triggers the message discard request. [The Examiner contends that this limitation depends on unselected features of its parent claim and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as its parent.]
Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of:
the first IAB entity comprises an IAB donor; (Xu; Fig. 1)
the second IAB entity comprises an IAB node or IAB donor DU; (Xu; Fig. 1) or
the message comprises a discard indication to indicate to the IAB node or IAB donor DU to discard a corresponding RRC message. [Examiner Note: Unselected Alternative claim language]
Regarding claim 7, Xu teaches, the method of claim 6,
wherein the discard indication includes an identifier of the RRC message which triggers the discard indication. [The Examiner contends that this limitation depends on unselected features of its parent claim and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as its parent.]
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of:
the first IAB entity comprises an IAB node or IAB donor DU; (Xu; Fig. 1)
the second IAB entity comprises at least one IAB child node; (Xu; 109, Node of Fig. 1) or
the message comprises a discard indication to indicate to the at least one IAB child node to discard a corresponding RRC message. [Examiner Note: Unselected Alternative claim language]
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches, the method of claim 8,
wherein the discard indication includes an identifier of the corresponding RRC message which triggers the discard indication. [The Examiner contends that this limitation depends on unselected features of its parent claim and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as its parent.]
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches, the method of claim 3,
wherein the IAB donor sends a RRC reconfiguration message and the associated identifier to the IAB node via an F 1 application configuration (FlAP) message. (Xu; the donor CU 101 may initiate a procedure, for example, an F1AP procedure, towards the node 121, Par. 0102)
Regarding claim 11, Xu teaches, a method, comprising:
receiving, by a second integrated access and backhaul (IAB) entity from a first IAB entity, a message related to radio resource control (RRC) message delivery, wherein the message comprises an indication to discard a corresponding RRC message. (Xu; the donor CU 101 may initiate a procedure, for example, an F1AP procedure, towards the node 121, to inform the node 121 to discard its buffered RRC message for the node 122, for example by transmitting a message 302 (for example, an F1AP message) to the node 121. For example, the message 302 may include a configuration including information associated with an indication for the node 121 to discard buffered RRC message, Par. 0102)
Regarding claim 12, Xu teaches, a second integrated access and backhaul (IAB) entity, comprising:
at least one processor (Xu; 103 Donor DU of Fig. 1) configured to:
receive, via a receiver from a first IAB entity, a message related to radio resource control (RRC) message delivery, wherein the message comprises an indication to discard a corresponding RRC message. (Xu; the donor CU 101 may initiate a procedure, for example, an F1AP procedure, towards the node 121, to inform the node 121 to discard its buffered RRC message for the node 122, for example by transmitting a message 302 (for example, an F1AP message) to the node 121. For example, the message 302 may include a configuration including information associated with an indication for the node 121 to discard buffered RRC message, Par. 0102 & Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 13, Xu teaches, a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) entity, comprising:
at least one processor (Xu; 101, Fig. 1) configured to:
send, via a transmitter to a second IAB entity, a message related to radio resource control (RRC) message delivery, wherein the message comprises an indication to discard a corresponding RRC message. (Xu; the donor CU 101 may initiate a procedure, for example, an F1AP procedure, towards the node 121, to inform the node 121 to discard its buffered RRC message for the node 122, for example by transmitting a message 302 (for example, an F1AP message) to the node 121. For example, the message 302 may include a configuration including information associated with an indication for the node 121 to discard buffered RRC message, Par. 0102 & Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Xu teaches, the first IAB entity of claim 13, wherein at least one of:
the first IAB entity comprises an IAB node (Xu; Fig. 1) or an IAB donor distributed unit (DU);
the second IAB entity comprises an IAB donor; (Xu; Fig. 1) or
the message comprises a RRC message delivery status to indicate that a buffered RRC message is discarded at the IAB node or IAB donor DU. [Examiner Note: Unselected Alternative claim language]
Regarding claim 15, Xu teaches, the first IAB entity of claim 14,
wherein the RRC message delivery status includes an identifier of the RRC message which triggers the RRC message delivery status. [The Examiner contends that this limitation depends on unselected features of its parent claim and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as its parent.]
Regarding claim 16, Xu teaches, the first IAB entity of claim 13, wherein at least one of:
the first IAB entity comprises an IAB node (Xu; Fig. 1) or an IAB donor DU;
the second IAB entity comprises an IAB donor; (Xu; Fig. 1) or
the message comprises a message discard request to indicate to the IAB donor that a buffered RRC message needs to be discarded at the IAB node or IAB donor DU. [Examiner Note: Unselected Alternative claim language]
Regarding claim 17, Xu teaches, the first IAB entity of claim 16,
wherein the message discard request includes an identifier of the RRC message which triggers the message discard request. [The Examiner contends that this limitation depends on unselected features of its parent claim and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as its parent.]
Regarding claim 18, Xu teaches, the first IAB entity of claim 13,
wherein at least one of:
the first IAB entity comprises an IAB donor; (Xu; Fig. 1)
the second IAB entity comprises an IAB node or IAB donor DU; or
the message comprises a discard indication to indicate to the IAB node or IAB donor DU to discard a corresponding RRC message. [Examiner Note: Unselected Alternative claim language]
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches, the first IAB entity of claim 18,
wherein the discard indication includes an identifier of the RRC message which triggers the discard indication. [The Examiner contends that this limitation depends on unselected features of its parent claim and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as its parent.]
Regarding claim 20, Xu teaches, the first IAB entity of claim 13, wherein at least one of:
the first IAB entity comprises an IAB node or IAB donor DU (Xu; Fig. 1);
the second IAB entity comprises at least one IAB child node; (Xu; 109, Node of Fig. 1) or
the message comprises a discard indication to indicate to the at least one IAB child node to discard a corresponding RRC message. [Examiner Note: Unselected Alternative claim language]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noel R Beharry whose telephone number is (571)270-5630. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5pm.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
NOEL R. BEHARRY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416