DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted June 23, 2026. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Ishii fails to disclose or suggest a selective control in which a notification is transmitted in response to a failure on a second link (NR) while a connection to a master node is maintained on a first link (E-UTRA)” (Remarks, p. 9). In response, the Examiner respectfully notes that this is an argument against Ishii individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Ishii at least requires the modifying teachings showing dual connectivity implemented as EN-DC (note, e.g., Muhammed [0118] and/or S3-191516 pages 1 and 4).
Also, as set forth in the previous Office action, 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 (implication or inherency stemming from the inability of uplink communication and/or the determination of another suitable parent node, described, e.g. at [0090]) the references Muhammad and R2-2104861 were alternatively relied upon.
With respect to R2-2104861, Applicant states this references “teaches away” due the functionality of proposal 2a (Remarks, pp. 9-10). The Examiner has carefully considered this point, but respectfully disagrees. R2-2104861 sets forth that the indication should not be used if (1) there is an alternative path; and (2) local rerouting is supported. Thus, if local rerouting is not supported, the criteria are not met. For at least this reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Muhammad, Applicant argues Muhammad fails to teach or suggest controlling the transmission of the failure notification to child nodes based on whether the relay node itself retains an alternative connection during a failure on another link” (Remarks, pp. 10-11). The Examiner has also carefully considered this point, and again respectfully disagrees. Muhammad at least teaches triggering the child node to reroute because of potential overflows that would incur, i.e. due to an incapability.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 9 (Remarks, p. 11) are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 18-20, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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. The specification does not adequately describe the function of transmitting a notification in response to the second link failure “while the relay node is connected to the master node via the first link [and also] when the relay node is not capable of uplink rerouting” (claim 1, lines 13-14).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends; particularly the failure of the second link and subsequent notification. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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”), 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:
performing, by a relay node, dual connectivity in which the relay node connects to a master node on a first link while connecting to a secondary node on a second link for backhauling (see, e.g., [0137]; note dual connectivity);
detecting, by a relay node, an occurrence of a failure in the second link (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, in response to detecting the occurrence of the failure in the second link while the relay node is connected to the master node via the first link when the relay node is not capable of uplink rerouting (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 “while the relay node is connected to the master node via the first link when the relay node is not capable of uplink rerouting 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.” Therefore, Ishii modified by Muhammad or R2-2104861 does not explicitly state “performing, by a relay node configured to operate in EN-DC, dual connectivity in which the relay node connects via Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) to a master node on a first link while connecting via New Radio(NR) to a secondary node on a second link for backhauling.” 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 notification is transmitted 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 subsequent 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: that the child node is capable of local rerouting for some paths and is incapable of local rerouting for other paths; or that 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 that 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 detecting, by the relay node, an occurrence of a failure in the first link; and determining to refrain, by the relay node, from transmitting to the child node the notification in response to detecting the occurrence of the failure in the first link while the relay node is connected to the secondary node on the second link (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.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. 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
Prosecution Insights