DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on page 9 of Remarks, that “Yang does not disclose "based on data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device, sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell: the data," as recited in claim 1 because Yang only teaches that the second base station sends a specified quantity of data blocks (rather than the data blocks themselves) to the primary base station based on the priority of service. See Yang, at paras. [0132] ("when a first condition is met, the secondary base station acquires the X first data blocks from the buffered service, or the secondary base station sends X to the primary base station, where the first condition includes: a priority of the UE is higher than a priority of other UE accessing the secondary base station. Optionally, the first condition further includes: a priority of the service is higher than a priority of a message sent by the secondary base station to the other UE accessing the secondary base station."), [0092] ("x is a quantity of the first data blocks"). (Emphasis added). Thus, Yang fails to disclose "based on data being associated with a priority service for a
wireless device, sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell: the data," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).”
On the contrary, the limitation in question, “based on data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device, sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell: the data associated with the priority service” only specifies that the data is “the data associated with the priority service”. Yang states, in paragraphs [0305]-[0306], “Optionally, as shown in FIG. 14, the base station 01 may include: a determining unit 013, configured to determine x before the first moment, where x is a quantity of the first data blocks; the sending unit 011 is further configured to send x to the first base station at the first moment;” [emphasis added]. Clearly, x, specified here by Yang to be “a quantity of the first data blocks” constitutes data. Yang further states, in paragraph [0307]: “Optionally, when a first condition is met, the acquiring unit 014 is configured to acquire the x first data blocks from the buffered service, or the sending unit 011 sends x to the first base station, where the first condition includes: a priority of the UE is higher than a priority of other UE accessing the base station 01.” [emphasis added]. Therefore, the quantity x is not only data, but is also data that is associated with a priority service, as required by claim 1.
Applicant asserts, on page 9 of Remarks, that “Moreover, even if Yang's priority service and Boariu's base station and relay station could be combined, the combination would only cause Boariu's relay station to send a number of data blocks (rather than the data blocks themselves) to Boariu's base station based on the priority of service because Yang discloses that "[a] secondary base station sends X to the primary base
station." Yang, at paras. [0132]. This combination would be contrary to the Office allegation that Boraiu's base station sending data to Boraiu's relay station would teach the claimed "sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell: the data." Office Action, at 4. Thus, even if Yang's and Boariu could be combined, the combination would not disclose "based on data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device, sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell: the data," as recited in claim 1.”
On the contrary, as explained above, Yang clearly discloses the limitation “based on data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device, sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell: the data associated with the priority service”. This limitation makes no distinction between “data blocks themselves” and a “quantity of data blocks”. Because a quantity of data blocks is itself data, and because this data is associated with a priority service, the combination of Boariu and Yang results in the method of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-16, 20-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boariu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0279145 (hereinafter Boariu), in view of Yang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0338044 (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Boariu discloses a method (disclosed is a method for centralized data transmission scheduling for a relay that is connected to a base station, according to Abstract, [0018]) comprising:
sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node serving a first cell (a base station [“second access node”] (which necessarily has an associated cell [“second cell”]) transmits information to a relay station [“first access node”] (which has an associated coverage area [“first cell”], according to [0006]), according to [0018], [0034]-[0038], Fig. 1):
data (a protocol data unit (PDU) is sent from the base station to the relay station, according to [0034]-[0038], Fig. 1), and
downlink resource information indicating resources, selected by the second access node, for transmission of the data from the first access node to a wireless device (the base station sends downlink transmission resource information to the relay for transmission of the data to a mobile station, according to [0018], [0041]).
Boariu does not expressly disclose that the data is sent by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell, based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device.
Yang discloses that data is sent by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell, based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device (a secondary base station [“second access node associated with a second cell”] sends a specified quantity of data blocks to a first base station [“first access node associated with a first cell”] when the priority of the associated service is higher than a specified priority level [“based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device”], according to [0305]-[0307], Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu with Yang such that the data is sent by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell, based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate providing an appropriate level of quality of service (Yang: [0203]).
Regarding claim 8, Boariu discloses a method (disclosed is a method for centralized data transmission scheduling for a relay that is connected to a base station, according to Abstract, [0018]) comprising:
receiving, by a first access node serving a first cell, and from a second access node associated with a second cell (a base station [“second access node”] (which necessarily has an associated cell [“second cell”]) transmits information to a relay station [“first access node”] (which has an associated coverage area [“first cell”], according to [0006]), according to [0018], [0034]-[0038], Fig. 1):
data (a protocol data unit (PDU) is sent from the base station to the relay station, according to [0034]-[0038], Fig. 1); and
downlink resource information indicating resources, selected by the second access node, for transmission of the data to a wireless device (the base station sends downlink transmission resource information to the relay for transmission of the data to a mobile station, according to [0018], [0041]); and
transmitting, by the first access node, to the wireless device, and via the resources, the data (the PDU is sent from the relay to the mobile station using the assigned downlink transmission resources, according to [0018], [0036]-[0038], [0041], Fig. 1).
Boariu does not expressly disclose that the data is received by a first access node associated with a first cell, from a second access node associated with a second cell, based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device.
Yang discloses that data is received by a first access node associated with a first cell, from a second access node associated with a second cell, based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device (a secondary base station [“second access node associated with a second cell”] sends a specified quantity of data blocks to a first base station [“first access node associated with a first cell”] when the priority of the associated service is higher than a specified priority level [“based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device”], according to [0305]-[0307], Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu with Yang such that the data is received by a first access node associated with a first cell, from a second access node associated with a second cell, based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate providing an appropriate level of quality of service (Yang: [0203]).
Claim 14 recites the second access node, comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors (a processor executes program code that is stored on a computer readable medium in order to perform the method of the invention, according to [0021]), causes said second access node to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 21 recites the first access node, comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors (a processor executes program code that is stored on a computer readable medium in order to perform the method of the invention, according to [0021]), causes said second access node to perform the method recited in claim 8, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Boariu discloses that the resources comprise an access link between the first access node and the wireless device (the assigned downlink transmission resources comprise the access link between the relay and the mobile station, according to [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Boariu discloses that the second access node is a parent node of the first access node, and the wireless device is a child node of the first access node (the base station is a parent node of the relay station, and the mobile station is a child node of the relay station, according to Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Boariu discloses sending, by the second access node, via the second cell, and to the first access node, one or more parameters indicating second resources of the first access node, wherein the second resources are different from the resources (the base station sends uplink transmission resource information [“one or more parameters indicating second resources”] to the relay for transmission of the data to a mobile station, according to [0018], [0041]).
Claims 9, 15, and 22 do not differ substantively from claim 2, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claims 11, 16, and 24 do not differ substantively from claim 3, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Boariu discloses that the downlink resource information comprises at least one of: a frequency domain resource assignment; or a time domain resource assignment (the base station schedules a time for data transmission by the relay station, according to [0051]).
Claims 13, 20, and 26 do not differ substantively from claim 7, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 25 does not differ substantively from claim 12, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 12.
6. Claims 4, 10, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boariu in view of Yang as applied to claims 1, 8, 14, and 21 above, further in view of Ghosh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0349871 (hereinafter Ghosh).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Boariu nor Yang expressly disclose that the first access node is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node.
Ghosh discloses that the first access node is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (a relay node is an integrated access and backhaul node, according to [0002], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu as modified by Yang with Ghosh such that the first access node is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent overlapping transmissions for relays that lack wired backhaul connections (Ghosh: [0016]).
Claims 10, 17, and 23 do not differ substantively from claim 4, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
7. Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boariu in view of Yang as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of Hosseini et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0053730 (hereinafter Hosseini).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Boariu nor Yang expressly discloses determining, by the second access node, that the data is associated with the priority service, based on the data being associated with a logical channel that requires at least one of: a network slice for a high reliable and low latency service; a latency lower than a time value; a packet loss rate lower than a first value; or a packet error rate lower than a second value.
Hosseini discloses determining, by the second access node, that the data is associated with the priority service, based on the data being associated with a logical channel that requires at least one of: a network slice for a high reliable and low latency service; a latency lower than a time value; a packet loss rate lower than a first value; or a packet error rate lower than a second value (a base station determines that uplink data that requires high reliability and low latency is associated with a high priority service [“a network slice for a high reliable and low latency service”], according to [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu as modified by Yang with Hosseini by determining, by the second access node, that the data is associated with the priority service, based on the data being associated with a logical channel that requires at least one of: a network slice for a high reliable and low latency service; a latency lower than a time value; a packet loss rate lower than a first value; or a packet error rate lower than a second value.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance uplink transmission reliability (Hosseini: [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Boariu nor Yang expressly disclose assigning, to the first access node, based on the data being associated with an ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) service, the resources.
Hosseini discloses assigning, to the first access node, based on the data being associated with an ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) service, the resources (a base station allocates uplink resources to a UE based on the uplink data being associated with ultra-reliability low latency communication (URLLC) service, according [0057]-[0058], whereby said UE may communicate via a relay station, according to [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu as modified by Yang with Hosseini by assigning, to the first access node, based on the data being associated with an ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) service, the resources.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance uplink transmission reliability (Hosseini: [0004]).
Claim 18 does not differ substantively from claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 19 does not differ substantively from claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
8. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boariu in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fischer et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0202356 (hereinafter Fischer).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Boariu nor Yang expressly discloses that the first cell does not comprise the resources selected by the second access node.
Fischer discloses that the first cell does not comprise the resources selected by the second access node (adjacent cells use separate frequency bands, according to [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu as modified by Yang with Fischer such that the first cell does not comprise the resources selected by the second access node.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize interference between neighboring cells (Fischer: [0003]-[0004]).
9. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boariu in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Leroudier et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0029645 (hereinafter Leroudier).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Boariu nor Yang expressly discloses that the resources comprise a backhaul link between the second access node and the first access node.
Leroudier discloses that the resources comprise a backhaul link between the second access node and the first access node (network resources comprise a microwave backhaul between two access nodes, according to [0018], Fig. 1A [elements 113a, 113b, and 118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu as modified by Yang with Leroudier such that the resources comprise a backhaul link between the second access node and the first access node.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve spectral efficiency (Leroudier: [0002]-[0003], [0009]-[0010]).
10. Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boariu in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sun et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0246419 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Boariu and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Boariu nor Yang expressly discloses sending a message that indicates preemption of the resources.
Sun discloses sending a message that indicates preemption of the resources (a DCI message indicating preemption of resources is sent, according to [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu as modified by Yang with Sun by sending a message that indicates preemption of the resources.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate spectral efficiency (Yang: [0061], [0064], [0075]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Boariu, Yang, and Sun discloses all the limitations of claim 29.
Neither Boariu nor Yang expressly discloses that the sending the message comprises sending the message to a second wireless device, based on determining that the resources overlap with at least a portion of second resources associated with the second wireless device.
Sun discloses that the sending the message comprises sending the message to a second wireless device, based on determining that the resources overlap with at least a portion of second resources associated with the second wireless device (the DCI message is sent to a UE, based on an overlap between scheduled resources for a given carrier and preempted resources, according to [0079], Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boariu as modified by Yang as modified by Sun with Sun such that the sending the message comprises sending the message to a second wireless device, based on determining that the resources overlap with at least a portion of second resources associated with the second wireless device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate spectral efficiency (Yang: [0061], [0064], [0075]).
Double Patenting
11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
12. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11-14,16 18, 20-21, 24-26, and 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812 in view of Yang. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing independent claim 1 of the pending application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812:
Pending Application 18/487,718
U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812
“A method comprising:”
“A method comprising:”
“based on data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device, sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node serving a first cell:”
“sending, by a second access node to a first access node, one or more parameters indicating first resources of the first access node;”
“the data associated with the priority service, and”
“the data, and”
“downlink resource information indicating resources, selected by the second access node, for transmission of the data from the first access node to the wireless device.”
“downlink resource information indicating the second resources for transmission of the data to the first wireless device.”
Claim 1 of the pending application 18/487,718 encompass the same subject matter as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812, except the instant application recites that data is sent by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell, based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device. Yang discloses this feature (a secondary base station [“second access node associated with a second cell”] sends a specified quantity of data blocks to a first base station [“first access node associated with a first cell”] when the priority of the associated service is higher than a specified priority level [“based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device”], according to [0305]-[0307], Fig. 14). Similar analyses apply to claims 8, 14, and 21 of the pending application.
Claim 3 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the second access node is a parent node of the first access node, and the wireless device is a child node of the first access node.” which corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. Similar analyses apply to claims 11, 16, and 24 of the pending application.
Claim 5 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the second access node, that the data is associated with the priority service, based on the data being associated with a logical channel that requires at least one of: a network slice for a high reliable and low latency service; a latency lower than a time value; a packet loss rate lower than a first value; or a packet error rate lower than a second value.” which corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. A similar analysis applies to claim 18 of the pending application.
Claim 7 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the second access node, via the second cell, and to the first access node, one or more parameters indicating second resources of the first access node, wherein the second resources are different from the resources.” which corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. Similar analyses apply to claims 13, 20, and 26 of the pending application.
Claim 12 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 8, wherein the downlink resource information comprises at least one of: a frequency domain resource assignment; or a time domain resource assignment.” which corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. A similar analysis applies to claim 25 of the pending application.
Claim 29 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending a message that indicates preemption of the resources.” which corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812.
Claim 30 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 29, wherein the sending the message comprises sending the message to a second wireless device, based on determining that the resources overlap with at least a portion of second resources associated with the second wireless device.” which corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812.
13. Claims 2, 9, 15, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812, in view of Boariu.
Claim 2 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the resources comprise an access link between the first access node and the wireless device.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. However, this feature is disclosed by Boariu, as outlined above. Similar analyses apply to claims 9, 15, and 22 of the pending application.
14. Claims 4, 10, 17, and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812, in view of Ghosh.
Claim 4 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the first access node is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. However, this feature is disclosed by Ghosh, as outlined above. Similar analyses apply to claims 10, 17, and 23 of the pending application.
15. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812, in view of Hosseini.
Claim 6 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning, to the first access node, based on the data being associated with an ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) service, the resources.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. However, this feature is disclosed by Hosseini, as outlined above. A similar analysis applies to claim 19 of the pending application.
16. Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812, in view of Fischer.
Claim 27 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the first cell does not comprise the resources selected by the second access node.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. However, this feature is disclosed by Fischer, as outlined above.
17. Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812, in view of Leroudier.
Claim 28 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the resources comprise a backhaul link between the second access node and the first access node.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,812. However, this feature is disclosed by Leroudier, as outlined above.
18. Claims 1-26 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465 in view of Yang. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing independent claim 1 of the pending application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465:
Pending Application 18/487,718
U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465
“A method comprising:”
“A method comprising:”
“based on data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device, sending, by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node serving a first cell:”
“sending, by a second access node, via a second cell, and to a first access node associated with a first cell,”
“the data associated with the priority service, and”
“the data, and”
“downlink resource information indicating resources, selected by the second access node, for transmission of the data from the first access node to the wireless device.”
“downlink resource information indicating the second resources for transmission of the data to the wireless device.”
Claim 1 of the pending application 18/487,718 encompass the same subject matter as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465, except the instant application recites that data is sent by a second access node associated with a second cell, to a first access node associated with a first cell, based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device. Yang discloses this feature (a secondary base station [“second access node associated with a second cell”] sends a specified quantity of data blocks to a first base station [“first access node associated with a first cell”] when the priority of the associated service is higher than a specified priority level [“based on the data being associated with a priority service for a wireless device”], according to [0305]-[0307], Fig. 14). Similar analyses apply to claims 8, 14, and 21 of the pending application.
Claim 2 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the resources comprise an access link between the first access node and the wireless device.” which corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. Similar analyses apply to claims 9, 15, and 22 of the pending application.
Claim 3 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the second access node is a parent node of the first access node, and the wireless device is a child node of the first access node.” which corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. Similar analyses apply to claims 11, 16, and 24 of the pending application.
Claim 4 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the first access node is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node.” which corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. Similar analyses apply to claims 10, 17, and 23 of the pending application.
Claim 5 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the second access node, that the data is associated with the priority service, based on the data being associated with a logical channel that requires at least one of: a network slice for a high reliable and low latency service; a latency lower than a time value; a packet loss rate lower than a first value; or a packet error rate lower than a second value.” which corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. A similar analysis applies to claim 18 of the pending application.
Claim 6 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning, to the first access node, based on the data being associated with an ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) service, the resources.” which corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. A similar analysis applies to claim 19 of the pending application.
Claim 7 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the second access node, via the second cell, and to the first access node, one or more parameters indicating second resources of the first access node, wherein the second resources are different from the resources.” which corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. Similar analyses apply to claims 13, 20, and 26 of the pending application.
Claim 12 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 8, wherein the downlink resource information comprises at least one of: a frequency domain resource assignment; or a time domain resource assignment.” which corresponds to claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. A similar analysis applies to claim 25 of the pending application.
Claim 28 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the resources comprise a backhaul link between the second access node and the first access node.” which corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465.
19. Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465, in view of Fischer.
Claim 27 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the first cell does not comprise the resources selected by the second access node.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. However, this feature is disclosed by Fischer, as outlined above.
20. Claims 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465, in view of Sun.
Claim 29 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending a message that indicates preemption of the resources.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. However, this feature is disclosed by Sun, as outlined above.
Claim 30 of the pending application 18/487,718 reads “The method of claim 29, wherein the sending the message comprises sending the message to a second wireless device, based on determining that the resources overlap with at least a portion of second resources associated with the second wireless device.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,465. However, this feature is disclosed by Sun, as outlined above.
Conclusion
21. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645