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 Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 11 January 2024, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 4-9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 29 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11 January 2024 and 10 February 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, 15, 19, 28 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1, 15, 28 and 30, the Office recommends utilizing parentheses to cite acronyms, rather than the commas as currently drafted.
Regarding Claim 5, “the method of Claim 1 4” should read “the method of Claim 1”.
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, language “an amount traffic” should read “an amount of traffic”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/556,127 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application, Claim 1 of the reference application anticipates the limitations as shown in the table below:
Claim 1 of instant application
Claim 1 of reference application
A method by a first Centralized Unit, CU1, in an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, network, the method comprising: transmitting a first message to a second CU, CU2, or receiving a first message from the CU2, and
transmitting, to a second donor node, a first message
wherein the first message comprises information indicating that a portion of offloaded traffic is to be returned to the CU1, and wherein the offloaded traffic was previously offloaded from the CU1 to the CU2.
a first message requesting a revocation of traffic offloading from the first donor node to the second donor nodes (i.e., returning offloaded traffic from a CU1 to the CU2).
Claim 15 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 17 of the reference application in a similar fashion to that shown for Claim 1 above (i.e., the revocation in Claim 17 anticipates the returning offloaded traffic in Claim 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26 and 28-31 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.
Regarding Claim 1, there are two recitations of “a first message”, one where a first message is transmitted and one where a first message is received. Further recitations relating to “the first message” in the claim language are therefore unclear as to whether it is the transmitted first message or the received first message. Claims 15, 28 and 30 have similar language to Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 29 and 31 fail to resolve the deficiencies in the independent claims and are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Further regarding Claims 2 and 29, the claim recites “prior to transmitting”; however, if the first message is “received” there is no transmitting step performed.
Regarding Claim 8 and 21, there is no antecedent basis for “the target donor node” or “the source donor node”.
Further regarding Claims 28 and 30, the claimed “centralized units” do not comprise any structure and therefore are considered functional limitations (refer to MPEP 2173.05(g)). As there is no structure recited in the claims, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Therefore, these claims are found to be indefinite. Claims 29 and 31 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claims 28 and 30.
Further regarding Claim 29, language “the source donor node” lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding Claim 31, language “the target donor node” lacks antecedent basis.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 15, 18, 19, 24, 25 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yi et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0064572), hereinafter Yi.
Regarding Claim 1, Yi discloses a method by a first Centralized Unit, CU1, in an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, network (refer to Figure 2 for IAB architecture comprising Donor-CU 1), the method comprising:
transmitting a first message to a second CU, CU2 (paragraphs 0214-0215 and Figure 10 – the traffic offloading initiator CU1 can send a traffic offloading release request), or receiving a first message from the CU2 (paragraphs 0214-0215 and Figure 11 – the traffic offloading receptor CU2 can send a traffic offloading release requirement to CU1), and
wherein the first message comprises information indicating that a portion of offloaded traffic is to be returned to the CU1 (paragraph 0191 – when performing traffic offloading, CU1 determines that some traffic should be offloaded to CU2 and establishes a redundant path to do so (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0192); paragraph 0216 – the message for releasing redundant paths identifies addresses or tunnels needing redundant path release), and
wherein the offloaded traffic was previously offloaded from the CU1 to the CU2 (paragraph 0191 – when performing traffic offloading, CU1 determines that some traffic should be offloaded to CU2 and establishes a redundant path to do so (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0192)).
Claim 28 comprises the same limitations as Claim 1, claimed as a centralized unit. Noting the lack of structure in the claim, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Yi discloses a method by a second Centralized Unit, CU2, in an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, network (refer to Figure 2 for IAB architecture comprising Donor-CU 2), the method comprising:
transmitting a first message to a CU1 (paragraphs 0214-0215 and Figure 11 – the traffic offloading receptor CU2 can send a traffic offloading release requirement to CU1) or receiving a first message from the CU1 (paragraphs 0214-0215 and Figure 10 – the traffic offloading initiator CU1 can send a traffic offloading release request to CU2), and
wherein the first message comprises information indicating that a portion of offloaded traffic is to be returned to the CU1 (paragraph 0191 – when performing traffic offloading, CU1 determines that some traffic should be offloaded to CU2 and establishes a redundant path to do so (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0192); paragraph 0216 – the message for releasing redundant paths identifies addresses or tunnels needing redundant path release), and
wherein the offloaded traffic was previously offloaded from the CU1 to the CU2 (paragraph 0191 – when performing traffic offloading, CU1 determines that some traffic should be offloaded to CU2 and establishes a redundant path to do so (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0192)).
Claim 30 comprises the same limitations as Claim 15, claimed as a centralized unit. Noting the lack of structure in the claim, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 15.
Regarding Claims 2 and 29, Yi discloses prior to transmitting the first message, offloading the offloaded traffic from the first CU1 to the CU2 (paragraph 0191 – when performing traffic offloading, CU1 determines that some traffic should be offloaded to CU2 and establishes a redundant path to do so (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0192); paragraph 0216 – the message for releasing redundant paths (which is sent after offloading has been performed) identifies addresses or tunnels needing redundant path release).
Regarding Claim 3, Yi discloses the offloaded traffic is terminated at a migrating IAB node (refer to Figure 6 at step 16 and paragraph 0184 – a UE is connected via a dual-connecting IAB-node, and the tunnel is migrated between an IAB-donor-CU1 and a descendant IAB-DU).
Regarding Claims 5, 18 and 31, Yi discloses the CU1 comprises a F1 termination node (paragraph 0215), and the CU2 comprises a F1 non-termination node (paragraph 0215).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Yi discloses the first message indicates an amount traffic associated with the portion of the offloaded traffic to be returned to the CU1 (paragraph 0191 – when performing traffic offloading, CU1 determines that some traffic should be offloaded to CU2 and establishes a redundant path to do so (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0192); paragraph 0216 – the message for releasing redundant paths (which is sent after offloading has been performed) identifies addresses or tunnels needing redundant path release).
Regarding Claims 11 and 24, Yi discloses the first message indicates at least one granted resource associated with the portion of the offloaded traffic to be returned to the CU1 (paragraph 0216 - the traffic offload release request/required messages contain a TNL address with which an F1-C needing redundant path release is associated, or UP transport layer information of an F1-U tunnel needing redundant path release).
Regarding Claim 25, Yi discloses the at least one granted resource comprises at least one of: a downlink resource, and/or an uplink resource (paragraph 0094 – in order to offload the traffic, the request includes TNL address, where the acceptance message (as described in paragraph 0096 comprises a TNL address newly allocated); paragraph 0216 - the traffic offload release request/required messages contain a TNL address with which an F1-C needing redundant path release is associated, or UP transport layer information of an F1-U tunnel needing redundant path release).
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.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 9, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Akl et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0132390), hereinafter Akl ‘390.
Regarding Claim 4, Yi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Yi does not disclose receiving the portion of the offloaded traffic that was previously offloaded from the CU1 to the CU2. In an analogous art, Akl ‘390 discloses this. Specifically, Akl ‘390 discloses recovery of RLF, where ongoing F1 connections of the IAB-node and its descendent nodes with the original donor (CU) may be retained and rerouted via the recovered path (paragraph 0083). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yi and Akl ‘390. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform traffic rerouting without the need for IAB-DU migration (see paragraph 0083 of Akl ‘390).
Regarding Claim 7, Yi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Yi does not disclose determining that the CU1 has a capacity to handle the portion of offloaded traffic to be returned to the CU1. In an analogous art, Akl ‘390 discloses this. Specifically, Akl ‘390 discloses recovery of RLF, where ongoing F1 connections of the IAB-node and its descendent nodes with the original donor (CU) may be retained and rerouted via the recovered path (thereby indicating that the source donor node can handle the portion of traffic that was offloaded prior to the RLF (paragraph 0083). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yi and Akl ‘390. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform traffic rerouting without the need for IAB-DU migration (see paragraph 0083 of Akl ‘390).
Regarding Claim 8, Yi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Yi does not disclose determining that a condition has been fulfilled, and wherein the first message is transmitted to the CU2 in response to determining that the condition has been fulfilled, wherein the condition comprises at least one of: determining that a timer has expired; identifying a traffic load increase at the target donor node; identifying that traffic at the target donor node has increased more than a threshold amount; identifying a traffic load decrease at the source donor node; and identifying that traffic at the source donor node has decreased more than a threshold amount. In an analogous art, Akl ‘390 discloses this. Specifically, Akl ‘390 discloses recovery of RLF, where ongoing F1 connections of the IAB-node and its descendent nodes with the original donor (CU) may be retained and rerouted via the recovered path (the source donor node now has capacity to handle the recovered traffic that it could not handle due to the RLF (paragraph 0083). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yi and Akl ‘390. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform traffic rerouting without the need for IAB-DU migration (see paragraph 0083 of Akl ‘390).
Regarding Claim 9, Yi discloses receiving, from the CU2, a second message indicating at least one resource to be released by the CU2 (paragraph 0216 - the traffic offload release request/required messages contain a TNL address with which an F1-C needing redundant path release is associated, or UP transport layer information of an F1-U tunnel needing redundant path release).
Regarding Claim 21, Yi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Li does not disclose determining that a condition has been fulfilled, and wherein the first message is transmitted to the CU1 in response to determining that the condition has been fulfilled, wherein the condition comprises at least one of: determining that a timer has expired; identifying a traffic load increase at the target donor node; identifying that traffic at the target donor node has increased more than a threshold amount; identifying a traffic load decrease at the source donor node; and identifying that traffic at the source donor node has decreased more than a threshold amount. In an analogous art, Akl ‘390 discloses this. Specifically, Akl ‘390 discloses recovery of RLF, where ongoing F1 connections of the IAB-node and its descendent nodes with the original donor (CU) may be retained and rerouted via the recovered path (the source donor node now has capacity to handle the recovered traffic that it could not handle due to the RLF (paragraph 0083). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yi and Akl ‘390. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform traffic rerouting without the need for IAB-DU migration (see paragraph 0083 of Akl ‘390).
Regarding Claim 22, Yi discloses receiving, from the CU1, a second message indicating at least one resource to be released by the CU2 (paragraph 0216 - the traffic offload release request/required messages contain a TNL address with which an F1-C needing redundant path release is associated, or UP transport layer information of an F1-U tunnel needing redundant path release).
Claims 13, 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Akl et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0386219), hereinafter Akl ‘219.
Regarding Claims 13 and 26, Yi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Yi does not disclose transmitting, to at least one IAB node, information associated with the portion of the offloaded traffic to be returned to the CU1. In an analogous art, Akl ‘219 discloses this. Specifically, Akl ‘219 discloses distributed routing address management in IAB networks (paragraph 0065 and Figure 5), where cell IDs and corresponding routing addresses are transmitted among the nodes in the network (paragraph 0066). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yi and Akl ‘219. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform topology discovery and load balancing in an IAB network (see paragraph 0004 of Akl ‘219).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Yi and Akl ‘219 discloses the information transmitted to the at least one IAB node comprises a routing table (Figure 5 and paragraph 0066 - where cell IDs and corresponding routing addresses are transmitted among the nodes in the network). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Yi and Akl ‘219. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform topology discovery and load balancing in an IAB network (see paragraph 0004 of Akl ‘219).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wang et al (WIPO Publication 2019184867) discloses link adjustment by a CU in order to manage congestion.
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