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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 2, 5, 9, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia et al. (3GPP TSG-Ran WG3 Meeting #112-e “discussion on Inter-donor-DU rerouting” (As provided in the IDS)) in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0099385 A1) Regarding claims 1, 9, Nokia et al. discloses an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) communication device, applicable to a second donor integrated access and backhaul distributed unit (donor IAB-DU), the IAB communication device, comprising: a receiver configured to receive uplink packet transmitted by an IAB node (Page 2 “a tunnel between the target IAB-donor-DU and the Donor-CU (or between target IAB-donor-DU and source IAB-donor-DU). When the target IAB-donor-DU receive the UL packets using the old routing ID/source IP address, the target IAB-donor-DU forward the UL packets to the IAB-donor-CU (or to the source 1AB-donor-DU) via a tunnel.“); a processor configured to add a header related to a transport network layer (TNL) tunnel to the uplink packet (tunneling a packet implicitly means adding a header); and a transmitter configured to transmit the uplink packet to a first donor IAB-DU via the transport network layer tunnel, wherein a source TNL address of the uplink packet is anchored at the first donor IAB-DU. (Page 2 teaches “When the target IAB-donor-DU receive the UL packets using the old routing ID/source IP address, the target IAB-donor-DU forward the UL packets to the IAB-donor-CU (or to the source 1AB-donor-DU) via a tunnel”) . Nokia et al. does not explicitly discloses a IAB communication device, wherein a processor configured to add a header related to a transport network layer (TNL) tunnel to the uplink packet. However Huang et al. discloses a IAB communication device, wherein a processor configured to add a header related to a transport network layer (TNL) tunnel to the uplink packet (Para 68 teaches of adding a header according to GPRS tunneling protocol). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of adding a header as per the GPRS tunneling protocol of Huang et al. with the system of Nokia et al. in order to provide a system that encapsulates user data, which helps hide the underlying IP infrastructure, offering a layer of security. Regarding claims 2, 10, Huang et al. discloses a IAB communication device, wherein the header comprises at least one of the following: an Internet Protocol header, a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol header, a User Datagram Protocol header or a Transmission Control Protocol header. (Para 68 teaches of adding a header according to GPRS tunneling protocol). The motivation to combine is the same as indicated in claim 1 above. Regarding claims 5, 13, Huang et al. discloses a IAB communication device, wherein the first donor IAB-DU and a second donor IAB-DU belong to the same donor IAB centralized unit (donor IAB-CU) (See Fig 3 item IAB node 2 DU3, IAB node 3 DU4 and IAB donor CU).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia et al. (3GPP TSG-Ran WG3 Meeting #112-e “discussion on Inter-donor-DU rerouting” (As provided in the IDS)) in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0099385 A1) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Ghanbarinejad et al. (US 2024/0244547 A1). Regarding claims 6, 14, Nokia et al. in view of Huang et al. discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1 above. Nokia et al. in view of Huang et al. does not disclose a IAB communication device, wherein the IAB node switches from the first donor IAB-DU to the second donor IAB-DU, or RRC is reestablished to the second donor IAB-DU after a radio link from the IAB node to the first donor IAB-DU fails; the first donor IAB- DU belongs to a first donor IAB-CU, and the second donor IAB-DU belongs to a second donor IAB-CU. However Ghanbarinejad et al. discloses a IAB communication device, wherein the IAB node switches from the first donor IAB-DU to the second donor IAB-DU, or RRC is reestablished to the second donor IAB-DU after a radio link from the IAB node to the first donor IAB-DU fails; the first donor IAB- DU belongs to a first donor IAB-CU, and the second donor IAB-DU belongs to a second donor IAB-CU. (See Fig 7 items IAB-DU1, IAB-DU2, IAB-CU1 and IAB-CU2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the architecture where each of the IAB-DU belongs to a separate IAB-CU of Ghanbarinejad et al. with the system of Nokia et al. in view of Huang et al. in order to provide a system that allows dual connectivity enhancements in integrated access and backhaul. Regarding claims 7, 15, Nokia et al. in view of Huang et al. discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1 above. Nokia et al. in view of Huang et al. does not disclose a IAB communication device, wherein the first donor IAB-DU belongs to a first donor IAB centralized unit (first donor IAB-CU), and a second donor IAB-DU belongs to a second donor IAB centralized unit (second donor IAB-CU). However Ghanbarinejad et al. discloses a IAB communication device, wherein the first donor IAB-DU belongs to a first donor IAB centralized unit (first donor IAB-CU), and a second donor IAB-DU belongs to a second donor IAB centralized unit (second donor IAB-CU) (See Fig 7 items IAB-DU1, IAB-DU2, IAB-CU1 and IAB-CU2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the architecture where each of the IAB-DU belongs to a separate IAB-CU of Ghanbarinejad et al. with the system of Nokia et al. in view of Huang et al. in order to provide a system that allows dual connectivity enhancements in integrated access and backhaul.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As per independent claim 16, the art of the record fails to teach nor would it have been obvious that the combination of the prior art teach these limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the claim of: indicating to the second donor IAB-DU to receive uplink packet from the IAB-node and deliver the uplink data packet to a first donor IAB-DU via a TNL tunnel between the first donor IAB-DU and the second donor IAB-DU; wherein, the first donor IAB-DU belongs to a first donor IAB-CU, and the second donor IAB- DU belongs to a second donor IAB-CU.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY P CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 5712723940. 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.
/AJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467