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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 20 July 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 15, 28 and 30 are amended.
Claims 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 23 and 27 are canceled.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26 and 28-31 are currently pending.
The outstanding provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of Claims 1 and 15 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 15, 18, 19, 24, 25 and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 15, 28 and 30.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 15, 28 and 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 28, the claim language, directed to the first centralized unit (CU1), recites (emphasis added by the Office) “transmit(ting) or receiv(ing) a first message, wherein the first message is transmitted to a second Centralized Unit (CU2)…wherein the first message indicates at least one backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel associated with the portion of the offloaded traffic to be returned to the CU1.” Regarding Claims 15 and 30, the claim language, directed to the second centralized unit (CU2), recites (emphasis added by the Office), “transmit(ting) or receiv(ing) a first message, wherein the first message is…received from the CU1…wherein the first message indicates at least one backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel associated with the portion of the offloaded traffic to be returned to the CU1.” The Office turns to Applicant’s specification for description of the dynamic offloading request performed by CU2 to determine support for the claim language at issue. Page 23, at lines 12-14, contains the following disclosure:
“Step 3.1: CU2 informs CU1 that it needs to reduce the resource allocation. These resources could be downlink, uplink, or both. It also indicates which resources (i.e., BH RLC channels) will be reduced/terminated.”
As shown in the disclosure above, the CU2 informs the CU1 of the BH RLC channels that will be reduced/terminated. As such, the disclosure does not provide support for CU1 transmitting a message that indicates at least one BH RLC channel associated with the portion of the offloaded traffic to be returned to the CU1 (as in Claims 1 and 28) or CU2 receiving a message that indicates at least one BH RLC channel associated with the portion of the offloaded traffic to be returned to the CU1 (as in Claims 15 and 30). Therefore, this claimed subject matter constitutes new matter. Claims 2-9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 29 and 31 are rejected by virtue of dependence on the rejected independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yi et al (WIPO Publication 2022/205485) discloses establishing and releasing redundant paths, as well as redundant data transmission over bearers mapped to the same BH RLC channel. (Note: Both the WIPO Publication and a machine translation are provided with this action.)
3GPP TS 38.340 V16.5.0 (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP) specification (Release 16)) discloses BH RLC channel mapping (refer to clause 5.2.1.4).
3GPP TS 38.473 V16.5.0 (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NG-RAN; F1 application protocol (F1AP) (Release 16)) discloses information elements related to BH RLC channel mapping (e.g., clause 9.3.1.98).
You et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0126621) discloses route redundancy in BH by allowing IAB-MT to have concurrent backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) channels with two parent nodes, which may need to be connected to the same IAB-donor CU-CP (control plane) that controls establishment and release of a redundant route through the two parent nodes (paragraph 0385).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights