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 filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed CUs are not disclosed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. ZTE clearly discloses a CU to CU connection in figure 4, thus first and second IAB CUs. Hence, all the argued and claimed limitations have been met. See ZTE at figure 4 and see page 3, where ZTE describes the CU to CU connection. Thus, all argued and claimed limitations have been met.
Applicant states that the claims 3 and 5 have been amended and amendment overcomes the rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment doesn’t clarify the original question, as to how a message that is initially sent to pause a transmission is resent to start the transmission again. Have the contents of the message changed, is there a flag or some sort of indication within the “same” message that can pause or resume a transmission?
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 3-6 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.
Claim 3 and 5, essentially recite that a revocation message for offloading was initially provided when the use for revocation (i.e. stopping, and pausing) is no longer required. This makes the claims vague and indefinite. It is unclear how revocation messages (i.e. messages for stopping and or pausing) equate not requiring stopping or pausing.
The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear and hence the claims are indefinite. The language of the claim was given a broadest reasonable interpretation. The boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Because claims delineate the patentee’s right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. (See MPEP 2173.02).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 17-19, 21-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2019184867A1 herein ZTE (as witnessed by the attached translation).
Claim 1, ZTE discloses A method performed by a network node operating as a first donor node for a wireless device, the method comprising: transmitting, to a second donor node, a first message requesting a revocation of traffic offloading from the first donor node to the second donor node (Pg. 4, suspension of offloading based on received congestion information).
wherein the first donor node is a first Integrated Access and Backhaul IAB) node operating as first Centralized Unit (CU) (Fig. 4, NR-NR dual connections between different CUs);
wherein the second donor node is second IAB node operating as a second CU ((Fig. 4, NR-NR dual connections between different CUs).
Claim 2, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein: the first donor node operating as the first CU provides anchoring for the offloaded traffic, and the second donor node operating as the second CU provides resources for routing of offloaded traffic (Pg. 3, NR-NR dual connectivity scenario between CUs. After the data arrives at the primary base station, the CU side of the primary base station decides through the flow control algorithm and divides the data between the two base stations through the Xn interface in a certain proportion. The UE receives the downlink data of the two base stations and summarizes them, thus resources provided by the second CU).
Claim 7, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 1 further comprising: receiving from the second donor node an X message requesting a revocation of traffic offloading (Pg. 4, sending transmission stating congestion), and in response to receiving from the second donor node the X message, sending to the second donor node an acknowledgment message (Pgs. 3-6, HARQ requires that an ACK is sent for all received messages).
Claim 8, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the second donor node, a request for the revocation of the traffic offloading, and wherein the first message confirms traffic offloading (Pg. 4, message notifying of congestion on the downloading).
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 18, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 19, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 21, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 22, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 7.
Claim 23, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 17 wherein prior to receiving the first message the method further comprises: determining a cause for revoking the traffic offloading to the second donor node (Pgs. 3-5, detecting congestion); and transmitting, to the first donor node, a request message requesting the revocation of the traffic offloading (Pg. 4: transmitting the message to the primary or master base station).
Claim 26, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 17. ZTE discloses disclose transmitting, to a third network node operating as a donor DU with respect to the second network node, a fourth message commanding the third network node to add a flag to a last downlink user plane packet to indicate that the downlink user plane packet is a last packet (Pg. 4, last sequence number from second base station or DU and then start transmission from different base station or DU).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9-16, 20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in view of US 20240187939 A1 Teyeb.
Claim 3, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 1. ZTE may not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining that a cause for the traffic offloading to the second donor node is no longer valid, and wherein the first message requesting the revocation of the traffic offloading is transmitted to the second donor node in response to determining that the cause for the traffic offloading is no longer valid .
Teyeb discloses determining that a cause for the traffic offloading to the second donor node is no longer valid (0077, suspend or resume operation), and wherein the first message requesting the revocation of the traffic offloading is transmitted to the second donor node in response to determining that the cause for the traffic offloading is no longer valid (0075, resuming transmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include IAB and resumption as taught by Teyeb so as to reduce the interruption time during handover (0002).
Claim 4, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 3, wherein determining that the cause for the traffic offloading to the second donor node is no longer valid where this determination is based on at least one of: an expiration of a timer; a level of traffic load associated with the first donor node; a processing load associated with the first donor node; an achieved quality of service pertaining to offloaded traffic during the traffic offloading; a signal quality associated with the first donor node; a signal quality associated with the second donor node; a number of backhaul radio link control channels; a number of radio bearers; a number of wireless devices attached to the first donor node; and a number of wireless devices attached to the second donor node (Pg. 4, signal quality measurements).
Claim 5, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 6, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 9, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 1. ZTE may not explicitly disclose further comprising transmitting, to a top-level IAB node, a third message comprising at least one of at least one re-routing rule for uplink user plane traffic; an indication that a previous set of configurations is to be reactivated; a set of new configurations to be activated; and an indication that no more uplink user plane traffic is to be sent via the second donor node.
Teyeb discloses further comprising transmitting, to a to a top-level IAB node, a third message (Figs. 3A, 3B and 4, IABs and parent node; 0075, resuming communications) comprising at least one of at least one re-routing rule for uplink user plane traffic (0075, configuration message based on several conditions); an indication that a previous set of configurations is to be reactivated; a set of new configurations to be activated; and an indication that no more uplink user plane traffic is to be sent via the second donor node (0075, configuration message based on several conditions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include IAB and resumption as taught by Teyeb so as to reduce the interruption time during handover (0002).
Claim 10, ZTE in view of Teyeb discloses The method of Claim 9. ZTE may not explicitly disclose wherein the top-level IAB node is a dual connected top-level node such that an IAB-Mobile Termination of the top-level IAB node is simultaneously connected to the first donor node and the second donor node.
Teyeb discloses wherein the top-level IAB node is a dual connected top-level node such that an IAB-Mobile Termination of the top-level IAB node is simultaneously connected to the first donor node and the second donor node (Figs. 3A, 3B and 4, connection to multiple IAB nodes; intended result – the clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited, MPEP 2111.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include IAB and resumption as taught by Teyeb so as to reduce the interruption time during handover (0002).
Claim 11, ZTE in view of Teyeb discloses Claim 9. ZTE may not explicitly disclose wherein a set of configurations were used by the top-level IAB node prior to the traffic offloading to the second donor node, and wherein the third message comprises an indication to reconfigure the top-level IAB node.
Teyeb discloses wherein a set of configurations were used by the top-level IAB node prior to the traffic offloading to the second donor node (0077), and wherein the third message comprises an indication to reconfigure the top-level IAB node (0077-0078). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include IAB and resumption as taught by Teyeb so as to reduce the interruption time during handover (0002).
Claim 12, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 1. ZTE may not explicitly disclose wherein: prior to the traffic offloading to the second donor node, the first donor node operates to carry a traffic load associated with a top-level IAB node, during the traffic offloading, the second donor node operates to take over the traffic load associated with the top-level IAB node, and after the revocation of the traffic offloading, the first donor node operates to resume carrying the traffic load associated with the top-level IAB node.
Teyeb discloses wherein prior to the traffic offloading to the second donor node, the first donor node operates to carry a traffic load associated with a top-level IAB node (Fig. 4: a. traffic transmission via first path (i.e. path including first donor node)), during the traffic offloading, the second donor node operates to take over the traffic load associated with the top-level IAB node (Fig. 4: b. transmission via a second path (i.e. path including second donor node)), and after the revocation of the traffic offloading, the first donor node operates to resume carrying the traffic load associated with the top-level IAB node (0075, configuration message based on several conditions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include IAB and resumption as taught by Teyeb so as to reduce the interruption time during handover (0002).
Claim 13, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 12.
Claim 14, ZTE discloses The method of Claim 1. ZTE may not explicitly disclose further comprising transmitting traffic to and/or receiving traffic from a top-level IAB node via a parent node under the first donor node via a path that did not exist between the top-level IAB node and the parent node prior to the traffic offloading.
ZTE discloses further comprising transmitting traffic to and/or receiving traffic from a top-level IAB node via a parent node under the first donor node via a path that did not exist between the top-level IAB node and the parent node prior to the traffic offloading (Fig. 4: Situation a and situation b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include IAB and resumption as taught by Teyeb so as to reduce the interruption time during handover (0002).
Claim 15, ZTE in view of Teyeb discloses The method of Claim 13. ZTE may not explicitly disclose transmitting a routing configuration to at least one ancestor node of the top- level IAB node under the first donor node, the routing configuration enabling the at least one ancestor node to serve traffic to and/or from the top-level IAB node, the routing configuration comprising at least one of: a Backhaul Adaptation Protocol routing identifier, a Backhaul Adaptation Protocol address, an Internet Protocol address, and a backhaul Radio Link Control channel identifier.
transmitting a routing configuration to at least one ancestor node of the top- level IAB node under the first donor node, the routing configuration enabling the at least one ancestor node to serve traffic to and/or from the top-level IAB node (Fig. 4: Situations a and b, where there are multiple nodes before the highest node (thus ancestor nodes) and child node), the routing configuration comprising at least one of: a Backhaul Adaptation Protocol routing identifier, a Backhaul Adaptation Protocol address, an Internet Protocol address, and a backhaul Radio Link Control channel identifier (0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include IAB and resumption as taught by Teyeb so as to reduce the interruption time during handover (0002).
Claim 16, ZTE discloses The method of any one of Claim 1. ZTE may not explicitly disclose further comprising receiving, from the second donor node, a confirmation message indicating that traffic offloading has been revoked.
Teyeb discloses receiving, from the second donor node, a confirmation message indicating that traffic offloading has been revoked (0088, 0124). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include IAB and resumption as taught by Teyeb so as to reduce the interruption time during handover (0002).
Claim 20, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 16.
Claim 25, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claims 9-11.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200280898 A1 - Provided are a data transmission method and apparatus. The method includes: detecting, by a source base station, that link quality of a connection with a terminal degrades; sending data unsuccessfully transmitted by a DU via a downlink data frame to a target base station through a CU, and transmitting the data unsuccessfully transmitted to the terminal through the target base station; or receiving, by the target base station, a link quality degradation message of an original base station so as to stop sending offload data to the source base station and transmitting the data unsuccessfully transmitted indicated by a maximum serial number of the data which has been transmitted continuously and successfully in the message to the terminal.
Conclusion
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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 pm.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights