DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0217598 A1 (hereinafter “Ishii”), in view of either U.S. Publication No. 2023/0143694 A1 (hereinafter “Muhammad”) or the non-patent literature document titled Enhancements To Local Rerouting and RLF Indication in IAB (hereinafter “R2-2104861”)1, and in further view of the non-patent literature document titled Status On RAN WI NR_IAB (hereinafter “S3-191516”).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18-20: Ishii teaches a communication control method used in a cellular communication system, the communication control method comprising steps of:
detecting, by a relay node, an occurrence of a failure in a backhaul link between the relay node and one of parent nodes of a first parent node and a second parent node, the relay node being configured with dual connectivity for the first parent node and the second parent node (see, e.g., figures 7, 9B, 11, 16; [0090]-[0096]; node A detects an RLF of a backhaul link with one of the parents); and
transmitting, by the relay node, a notification relating to detection of the failure to a child node of the relay node, when the relay node is not capable of uplink rerouting, wherein the transmitting the notification relating to detection of the failure is conducted when the relay node operates in [dual connectivity] and the failure in the backhaul link is occurred between the second parent node and the relay node forming the backhaul link with the second parent node (see, e.g., figures 7, 9B, 11, 16; [0090]-[0096], [0100], [0124]; a notification related to the failure is sent to the child).
Ishii does not explicitly state transmitting the notification “when the relay node is not capable of uplink rerouting.” To the extent this feature is not implied or inherent to the system of Ishii (note, e.g. figures 7, 11, 16; and [0090]; note the inability of uplink communication, and/or the determination of another suitable parent node), it is nevertheless taught in Muhammad (see, e.g., [0032], [0034], [0099]-[0104]; note the indication of an inability to connect in the uplink; note also overlapping teachings with respect to failure detection and indication to child nodes [0025], [0121], [0122]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Muhammad, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Ishii, in order to reduce overhead signaling and/or improve resource utilization.
Alternatively to Ishii, the said feature is taught by R2-2104861 (see, e.g., section 2.2; the notification is sent if there are no alternative paths). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of R2-2104861, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Ishii, in order to improve rerouting mechanisms.
Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861 does not explicitly state wherein the dual connectivity is “EN-DC.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861 (see, e.g., Muhammad [0118]), it is nevertheless taught in S3-191516 (see, e.g., pages 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of S3-191516, such as the EN-DC functionality, within the system of Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, in order to improve new radio deployment.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the relay, system, medium, and chipset of claims 12, 18, 19, and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches wherein the transmitting the notification relating to detection of the failure from the relay node to the child node when an RRC reestablishment processing is started (see, e.g., Ishii [0090]-[0097]; Muhammad [0040]-[0044]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the relay of claim 12.
Regarding claims 3 and 14: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches wherein the occurrence of a failure in the backhaul link is caused by an expiration of a timer that starts after detecting a radio link failure (see, e.g., Ishii [0089], [0100]).
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the relay of claim 14.
Regarding claims 4 and 15: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches wherein the notification indicates that the relay node is attempting to recover from the failure (see, e.g., Ishii [0097], [0100]; Muhammad [0049], [0102]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 4 is applicable to the relay of claim 15.
Regarding claim 5: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches performing, by the child node, local rerouting of upstream traffic, when the child node receives the notification from the relay node (see, e.g., Ishii figures 11, 16; Muhammad [00010], [0100]; R2-2104861 section 2.2.2). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches transmitting, by the child node, the notification to a child node of the child node, when the child node receives the notification from the relay node and satisfies a predetermined condition (see, e.g., R2-2104861 section 2.2.1-2.2.4). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches wherein the predetermined condition is: when the child node is capable of local rerouting for some paths and is incapable of local rerouting for other paths; or when the child node does not support local rerouting (see, e.g., R2-2104861 section 2.2.1-2.2.4). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches wherein the predetermined condition is when the relay node transmits information indicating execution of propagation of the notification along with the notification relating to detecting the failure (see, e.g., R2-2104861 section 2.2.1-2.2.4). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
Regarding claims 9 and 16: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches wherein the notification relating to detection of the failure is not transmitted when the failure occurs between the relay node and the first parent node where the first parent node is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) node providing an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) service, and the second parent node is a New Radio (NR) node providing a NR service (see, e.g., S3-191516 pages 1 and 4; Ishii figures 11, 16; Muhammad [00010], [0100]; R2-2104861 section 2.2.1-2.2.4; note that a notification is not sent if an alternative path is available). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 9 is applicable to the relay of claim 16.
Regarding claims 10 and 17: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches transmitting additional information relating to the notification in addition to the transmitting the notification relating to detecting the failure (see, e.g., Ishii [0080], [0101], [0207]; Muhammad [00010], [0167], [0168]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 10.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 10 is applicable to the relay of claim 17.
Regarding claim 11: Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861, and further S3-191516, further teaches wherein the additional information includes one of: information indicating whether the relay node is capable of local rerouting; information indicating whether the child node is to perform local rerouting; information indicating in which one of a first backhaul link and a second backhaul a failure has occurred, or information indicating which one of the first backhaul link and the second backhaul link is available, the first backhaul link being between a first parent node managing a master cell group and the relay node, the second backhaul link being between a second parent node managing a secondary cell group and the relay node; information indicating an available routing ID or information indicating an unavailable routing ID; and information indicating quality of an available link (see, e.g., Ishii [0080], [0101], [0207]; Muhammad [00010], [0167], [0168]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 11.
Relevant Art
7. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 R2-2104861 was cited in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement submitted February 2, 2024 (Non-Patent Literature Documents, cite no. 2)