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 . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-01-23 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-18 are pending for consideration.
Priority
The disclosure of the prior-filed application(s) provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the amended independent claims of this application. Consequently, the said claims are awarded to the priorities of:
Prior-Filed Application(s):
US Application 17261437
PCTKR2019010121
Double Patenting
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claim(s) of a reference patent/application.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8
The claim(s) is/are unpatentable over the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim(s) is/are a broader version of identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application. Hence, the claims are not patentably because the instant claim(s) is/are anticipated by the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application.
Reference patent/application:
US11889356
Instant Claim
Claim of Reference patent/application
5, 6, 8
8
1-3
4
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALKAMAKI_147 (US20200015147) in view of プラティーク_327 (JP2016532327)
Claim(s) 1, 10
MALKAMAKI_147 teaches
a transceiver; and a controller configured to:
receive, from a second node via an adaptation layer associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB), indication information related to a radio link, Adaptation layer status report to be transmitted towards the IAB node serving at least one user equipment transmitting uplink data to network entity. Adaptation layer status report can indicate one of: a radio link failure or retransmission unsuccessful. <FIG(s). 4, 5; para. 0043-0050>.
wherein the indication information related to the radio link is a radio link outage indication
MALKAMAKI_147 does not explicitly teach
wherein receipt of the radio link outage indication results in the first node re-establishing a connection, and
wherein the radio link resume indication indicates that the radio link is available.
However プラティーク_327 teaches,
wherein receipt of the radio link outage indication results in the first node re-establishing a connection, and Network device triggers a link recovery upon receiving a report that indicates RLF occurred <para. 192>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by [REF A] with the embodiment(s) disclosed by プラティーク_327. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improved method for managing resource allocation of mobile stations (preferably mobile stations having the ability to connect to multiple cells simultaneously. See プラティーク_327 at para. 0001.
With regards to,
a radio link resume indication, wherein the radio link resume indication indicates that the radio link is available.
The above feature is directed to limitations that further narrow an alternative embodiment. As discussed herein, the base claim was anticipated using another embodiment (i.e., not the alternative embodiment). Consequently, the feature does not need to be anticipated by the reference to anticipate the claim because it is an alternative, alternative embodiment.
Claim(s) 5, 14
MALKAMAKI_147 teaches
a transceiver; and a controller configured to:
transmit, to a first node via an adaptation layer associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB), indication information related to a radio link, Adaptation layer status report to be transmitted towards the IAB node serving at least one user equipment transmitting uplink data to network entity. Adaptation layer status report can indicate one of: a radio link failure or retransmission unsuccessful. <FIG(s). 4, 5; para. 0043-0050>.
wherein the indication information related to the radio link is a radio link outage indication
MALKAMAKI_147 does not explicitly teach
wherein receipt of the radio link outage indication by the first node serves to initiate a re-establishment of a connection by the first node, and
However in a similar endeavor, プラティーク_327 teaches
wherein receipt of the radio link outage indication by the first node serves to initiate a re-establishment of a connection by the first node, and Network device triggers a link recovery upon receiving a report that indicates RLF occurred <para. 192>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by MALKAMAKI_147 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by プラティーク_327. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improved method for managing resource allocation of mobile stations (preferably mobile stations having the ability to connect to multiple cells simultaneously. See プラティーク_327 at para. 0001.
With regards to,
a radio link resume indication, wherein the radio link resume indication indicates the first node that the radio link is available.
The above feature is directed to limitations that further narrow an alternative embodiment. As discussed herein, the base claim was anticipated using another embodiment (i.e., not the alternative embodiment). Consequently, the feature does not need to be anticipated by the reference to anticipate the claim because it is an alternative, alternative embodiment.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALKAMAKI_147 (US20200015147) in view of プラティーク_327 (JP2016532327) and in further view of Hong_180 (US20130039180)
Claim(s) 2, 11
MALKAMAKI_147 does not explicitly teach
wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, from the second node via the adaptation layer associated with the IAB, information for polling information on an available buffer size of the first node; and
transmit, to the second node via the adaptation layer associated with the IAB, the information on the available buffer size of the first node.
However in a similar endeavor, Hong_180 teaches
wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, from the second node via the adaptation layer associated with the IAB, information for polling information on an available buffer size of the first node; and A wireless apparatus may request a reception device for the block ACK frame based on the information of the reception device. Thereafter, the apparatus receives information about a state of the receive buffer from the reception device through the block ACK frame. Accordingly, the request functions and acts as the claimed "information indicating to report information on available buffer size of the first node." <FIG(s). 2; para. 0064-0065, 0067-0068, 0125-0129>.
transmit, to the second node via the adaptation layer associated with the IAB, the information on the available buffer size of the first node. Wireless apparatus receives, from a reception device, a ACK frame includes available buffer size field. The apparatus may request the reception device for the block ACK frame based on the information of the reception device. Thereafter, the apparatus receive information about a state of the receive buffer from the reception device through the block ACK frame. <FIG(s). 2; para. 0064-0065, 0067-0068, 0125-0129>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by MALKAMAKI_147 and プラティーク_327 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Hong_180. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to limit a number of packets to be transmitted by a transmission device based on information about an implementation scheme of a receive buffer of a reception device, thereby reducing network overhead. See para. 0045.
Claim(s) 6, 15
MALKAMAKI_147 does not explicitly teach
wherein the controller is further configured to:
transmit, to the first node via the adaptation layer associated with the IAB, information for polling information on an available buffer size of the first node; and
receive, from the first node via the adaptation layer associated with the IAB, the information on the available buffer size of the first node.
However in a similar endeavor, Hong_180 teaches
wherein the controller is further configured to:
transmit, to the first node via the adaptation layer associated with the IAB, information for polling information on an available buffer size of the first node; and A wireless apparatus may request a reception device for the block ACK frame based on the information of the reception device. Thereafter, the apparatus receive information about a state of the receive buffer from the reception device through the block ACK frame. Accordingly the request functions and acts as the claimed "information indicating to report information on available buffer size of the first node." <FIG(s). 2; para. 0064-0065, 0067-0068, 0125-0129>.
receive, from the first node via the adaptation layer associated with the IAB, the information on the available buffer size of the first node. Wireless apparatus receives, from a reception device, a ACK frame includes available buffer size field. The apparatus may request the reception device for the block ACK frame based on the information of the reception device. Thereafter, the apparatus receives information about a state of the receive buffer from the reception device through the block ACK frame. <FIG(s). 2; para. 0064-0065, 0067-0068, 0125-0129>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by MALKAMAKI_147 and プラティーク_327 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Hong_180. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to limit a number of packets to be transmitted by a transmission device based on information about an implementation scheme of a receive buffer of a reception device, thereby reducing network overhead. See para. 0045.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALKAMAKI_147 (US20200015147) in view of プラティーク_327 (JP2016532327) and in further view of FUJISHIRO_968 (US20210159968)
Claim(s) 4, 13
MALKAMAKI_147 does not explicitly teach
wherein the first node comprises a function of distributed unit (DU) for a base station and a function for a user equipment (UE).
However in a similar endeavor, FUJISHIRO_968 teaches
wherein the first node comprises a function of distributed unit (DU) for a base station and a function for a user equipment (UE). The IAB node 300 has a UE function (user equipment function) and a gNB function (base station function). <para. 0034>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by MALKAMAKI_147 and プラティーク_327 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by FUJISHIRO_968. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improved relay technique in wireless network system <para. 0003-0006>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALKAMAKI_147 (US20200015147) in view of プラティーク_327 (JP2016532327) and in further view of Novlan_023 (US20190350023)
Claim(s) 8, 17
MALKAMAKI_147 does not explicitly teach
wherein the second node comprises a function of distributed unit (DU) for the base station.
However in a similar endeavor, Novlan_023 teaches
wherein the second node comprises a function of distributed unit (DU) for the base station. IAB node functionality can be the gNode B (gNB) function or distributed unit (Du) function, <para. 0037>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by MALKAMAKI_147 and プラティーク_327 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Novlan_023. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a common framework that can be used for the RRM configuration for IAB nodes. <para. 0040>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALKAMAKI_147 (US20200015147) in view of プラティーク_327 (JP2016532327) and in further view of Novlan_023 (US20190350023)
Claim(s) 9, 18
MALKAMAKI_147 does not explicitly teach
wherein the second node further comprises a function for a user equipment (UE).
However in a similar endeavor, FUJISHIRO_968 teaches
wherein the second node further comprises a function for a user equipment (UE). IAB node 300 has a UE function (user equipment function) and a gNB function (base station function). <para. 0034, 0071>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by MALKAMAKI_147, プラティーク_327 and Novlan_023 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by FUJISHIRO_968. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improved relay technique in wireless network system <para. 0003-0006>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and objected to.
Claim(s) 12 and 7, 16
The claim(s) is/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.
In the previous action, LI_082 (US20150230082), in view of Filsfils_370 (US20140169370), and in further view of Shih_218 (US20200008218) was used to anticipate the claim(s)’s subject matter. In the current action, the base claims are rejected under MALKAMAKI_147, プラティーク_327, and Hong_180. Accordingly a hypothetical prior art rejection to the claims could the combination of:
MALKAMAKI_147, プラティーク_327
Hong_180
LI_082
Filsfils_370
Shih_218
Upon consideration, while the reference above teaches features of the claim(s), it would not be obvious to the combine the above references to anticipate the claims.
Examiner’s Notes
English Translations of Non-English Documents
Text herein may rely upon a non-English document. Any citations used herein for said document refers to paragraphs numbers in the (English) translated document, not the original non-English document.
Response to Arguments
The following arguments in the Reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Double Patenting
The Reply argues that the asserted claims are not of the same scope of the instant claims because they fail to recite “the feature corresponding to the radio link resume indication." These are effectively the same argument made in 2025-08-13 that ignore the fact this feature is an alternative, optional feature. Consequently, the Examiner will repeat the same arguments made in action 2025-10-23:
Double patenting argument are not persuasive as they fail to address the reasoning in the final action - claim 4 of the US11889356B2 does not require a "radio resume indication" because in the instant claim 1 it is an alternative feature. Instant claim 1 recites "indication information related to the radio link is a radio link outage indication or a radio link resume indication" - because of the "or" only one of the indications is necessary to invoke the double patenting - not BOTH. Claim 4 of the US11889356B2 teaches a radio link outage indication; it does not need to teach both a radio link outage and a radio resume indication because the instant claims require: a radio link outage indication or a radio link resume indication.
The Reply’s arguments with respect to the other matters have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection(s), which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights