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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-7 an 11-17 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.
The terms “a prior IPv4”, “a prior IPv6”, and “a prior IPv6 prefix” recited in claims 1 and 11 are confusing. Applicant needs to define these terms. It is unclear what “a prior IPv4”, “a prior IPv6”, and “a prior IPv6 prefix” are.
All claims depend on claims 1 and 11 are rejected.
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.
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 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Teyeb et al, US Pub. No. 2023/0269644 A1, in view of Alam et al, US Pub. 2020/0305042 A1, hereinafter referred to as Teyeb and Alam.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, as best understood, Teyeb discloses wireless communication methods and systems, and more specifically to inter-Centralized Unit (CU) migration in an Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) network, the wireless systems and methods comprise: a processor implemented in a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) donor (fig. 17 illustrates an IAB node comprising a processor 510); and a transceiver, coupled to the processor (transceiver 540 coupled to processor 510), configured to: transmit, to a second IAB donor, an Xn Application Protocol (XnAP) message comprising an Internet Protocol (IP) address request information (fig. 9, step 110, and p. [0132]-0133]: the request Xn Signaling from Source Donor-CU 20 to Target Donor-CU 30, wherein the additional information may comprise an IP address); and receive, from the second IAB donor, an IP address information (fig. 9, step 115, and p. [0142]-[0143]: The source donor-CU20 (i.e. CU1) will get the information about the new IP addresses and will use them from there on instead of the old IP addresses). Teyeb does not disclose wherein the IP address request information comprises a prior IPv4 address, a prior IPv6 address, or a prior IPv6 prefix. Alam discloses this feature at paragraphs [0072]-[0075], tables 2-4 (the gateway receives IP packets back from APP server, then if ICN-IP Translator Logic 1030 may generate IP packets that contains the request and set the source IP address to UE IP address, the edge gateway checks the Information-centric networking-Internet Protocol (ICN-IP) Routing Mapping Table 1040 (table 2) to determine the requested Content Prefix based on the Destination IP address of the received IP packet. If the ICN-IP Translator Logic 1030 may generate IP packets that contains the request and set the source IP address to its own IP address, then the edge gateway relies on Apps Specific Translator Helper Logic 1045 to determine the Content Prefix by analyzing the content of the received IP packets from APP server). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the feature disclosed by Alam into Teyeb’s system to reduce latency during handover (Alam’s abstract).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Teyeb discloses wherein the IP address information comprises at least one of an IP address information of an IAB node, an IP address information of the first IAB donor, or an IP address information of the second IAB donor (p. 0142]: The target donor-DU will allocate the IP addresses, and send them to the target donor-CU30. The source donor-CU20 (i.e. CU1) will get the information about the new IP addresses and will use them from there on instead of the old IP addresses).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Teyeb discloses wherein the XnAP message comprises an XnAP handover request message (p. [0132]: XnAP handover preparation message (i.e. handover request message)) .
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Teyeb discloses wherein the IP address request information is included in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Context Information Element (IE) in the XnAP handover request message (fig. 6, [0025]-[0027]: the XnAP handover request comprises RRC context setup request and context setup response).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Teyeb discloses wherein the IP address request information is included in a HandoverPreparationInformation message in the XnAP handover request message (p. [0052]: the handover request comprises an XnAP handover preparation message).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Teyeb discloses wherein the IP address request information comprises at least one of a number of requested IPv4 addresses, a number of requested IPv6 addresses, a usage of an IPv6 prefix, a usage of the requested IPv4 addresses, a usage of the requested IPv6 addresses (the IP address disclosed by Teyeb is inherently at least one of IPv4 or IPv6 address).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Teyeb discloses wherein the IP address information comprises at least one of an IP address for IP security (IPsec) for F1-U traffic, an IP address for IPsec for F1-C traffic, an IP address for IPsec for non-F1 traffic, a prior IP address for IPsec for the F1-U traffic, a prior IP address for IPsec for the F1-C traffic, a prior IP address for IPsec for the non-F1 traffic, an IP address for a General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunneling Protocol (GTP) endpoint, or a Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP) address for an IAB node (see p. [0009]: The full user plane F1-U (GTP-U/UDP/IP) is terminated at the IAB node (like a normal DU) and the full control plane F1-C (F1-AP/SCTP/IP) is also terminated at the IAB node (like a normal DU). In the above cases, Network Domain Security (NDS) has been employed to protect both UP and CP traffic (IPsec in the case of UP, and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) in the case of CP). IPsec could also be used for the CP protection instead of DTLS).
Regarding claim 8, Teyeb discloses the method comprising: transmitting, by a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) donor to an IAB node, an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (fig. 7-8, p. [0124]: IAB-node 3 DU has an F1AP connection with IAB-Donor CU1) comprising an Internet Protocol (IP) address information, wherein the IP address information comprises at least one of an IP address information of the IAB node, an IP address information of the first IAB donor, and an IP address information of a second IAB donor (fig. 9, step 110, and p. [0132]-0133]: the request Xn Signaling from Source Donor-CU 20 to Target Donor-CU 30, wherein the additional information may comprise an IP address; p.[ 0142]: The target donor-DU will allocate the IP addresses, and send them to the target donor-CU30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am-18:30pm.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
THAI HOANG D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/THAI DINH HOANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights