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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 06/26/2024. Claims 1-29 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim limitation of “determining, by the IAB node, required guard duration for at least one transition between a Mobile Terminal (MT) of the IAB node and a Distributed Unit (DU) of the IAB node” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the claim limitation of “determining, by the IAB node, required guard duration for at least one transition between a Mobile Terminal (MT) of the IAB node and a Distributed Unit (DU) of the IAB node,” recited in claims 1-29.
Moreover, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites the limitation of “determining, by the IAB node, required guard duration for at least one transition between a Mobile Terminal (MT) of the IAB node and a Distributed Unit (DU) of the IAB node”. Since the instant application is a divisional application of the earlier or parent application 17/420,632, therefore, the disclosure presented in the instant application must not include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted as an amendment to the parent application 17/420,632. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 6, line 3, “TDM mode” should be changed to --TDM mode;--.
As per claim 13,
line 4, “child IAB node” should be changed to --child IAB node;--.
Line 5, “.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-29 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.
As per claims 1-29, the claims commonly call for the limitation of “determining, by the IAB node, required guard duration for at least one transition between a Mobile Terminal (MT) of the IAB node and a Distributed Unit (DU) of the IAB node.” Since the instant application is a divisional application of the earlier or parent application 17/420,632, therefore, the disclosure presented in the instant application must not include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted as an amendment to the parent application 17/420,632. Should the recitation of “determining, by the IAB node, required guard duration for at least one transition between a Mobile Terminal (MT) of the IAB node and a Distributed Unit (DU) of the IAB node” be amended into the parent application 17/420,632, it would constitute new matter.
As per claims 10-11, 15-20, and 25-27, there is no support for the claim limitation pertaining the skipping recitation in the parent application 17/420,632.
As per claims 9-13, 15-20, and 25-28, there is no support for the claim limitation pertaining the actual guard duration recitation in the parent application 17/420,632.
Should the Applicant disagree with the examiner’s position, in a response to this Office Action, kindly point to the teaching of the disputed claim limitations in the parent application 17/420,632.
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 1-9, 12, 21-24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0306112) (hereinafter “Choi”) in view Jo et al. (US 11,303,349) (hereinafter “Jo”).
Regarding claim 1, in accordance with Choi reference entirety, Choi teaches a method for timing alignment in an Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) network (Abstract and thereinafter: “… A method, performed by an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, for transmitting and receiving data in a wireless communication system … .”), wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by an IAB node (FIG. 5; IAB2 502), at least one resource configuration (para [0075]: “… backhaul data transmission 511 … backhaul data transmission 514 … access data 513 … access data 515 … .”),
determining, by the IAB node (FIG. 5; IAB2 502), required guard duration (guard interval) for at least one transition between a Mobile Terminal (MT) of the IAB node and a Distributed Unit (DU) of the IAB node (para [0076]: “… a guard interval required for the IAB node 2 502 to transmit or receive backhaul data … .”); and
signalling, by the MT of the IAB node (FIG. 5; IAB2 502), the required guard duration (guard interval) to one of a DU of at least one parent node and a DU of at least one donor node (FIG. 5; Donor/IAB1 501) (TABLE 1 and para [0076]: … then transmit or receive access data may be calculated as shown in Table 1. In Table 1, TS may be a time required to change a radio frequency (RF) of the IAB node 2 502 from transmit to receive or from receive to transmit. In Table 1, "-" may mean that a guard interval is not necessary because a link and a transmission direction are maintained”).
For argument’s sake, let’s say that Choi fails to explicitly teach the claim limitation of “receiving, by an IAB node, at least one resource configuration.” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Choi’s teaching is well-known in the art and taught by Jo.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Jo teaches a method for receiving allocation information in a wireless communication (Jo; Abstract and thereinafter) comprising, among other things, the limitation of “receiving, by an IAB node, at least one resource configuration” (Jo; FIG. 24; step S101 and col. 31, line 66 col. 32, line 2: “… receives first allocation information related to communication with the parent node and second allocation related to communication with the child node (S101).”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome the shortfalls of existing art in making two resource allocations (Jo; col. 2, lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein receiving comprises: receiving, by the DU of the IAB node, a first resource configuration (slot i) from a CU of the donor node; and receiving, by the MT of the IAB node, a second resource configuration (slot i+1) for the MT from the DU of the at least one parent node (Choi; para [0090]: “In a first embodiment, transmission always takes priority in order to secure a guard interval obtained in Table 4. For example, when an IAB node receives, 801, data in a slot i and then transmits, 802, data in a slot i+1, in order to secure a guard interval 803, the IAB node may not receive the last OFDM symbols 803 corresponding to a time period of the guard interval 803 from among data that must be received in the slot I, and may perform a data transmission in the slot i+1.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of “wherein the required guard duration is in terms of number of symbols” (Choi; para [0021]: “… for some symbols of the first data corresponding to the guard interval from among the first data … the second data.” Or Jo; col. 20, line 67 to col. 21, line 4: “The GP provides a time gap when the base station and the UE switch from a transmission mode to a reception mode or from the reception mode to a transmission mode. Some symbols at eth the of a DL-to-UL switch in a subframe may be set to a GP.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein the at least one transition comprises at least one of: a. reception at the MT of the IAB node to reception at the DU of the IAB node, b. reception at the MT of the IAB node to transmission at the DU of the IAB node, c. reception at the DU of the IAB node to reception at the MT of the IAB node, d. reception at the DU of the IAB node to transmission at the MT of the IAB node, e. transmission at the MT of the IAB node to transmission at the DU of the IAB node, f. transmission at the MT of the IAB node to reception at the DU of the IAB node, g. transmission at the DU of the IAB node to transmission at the MT of the IAB node, and h. transmission at the DU of the IAB node to reception at the MT of the IAB node (Choi; para [0020]: “… performing a transition between the transmission mode and the reception mode … in a guard interval.” It is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein the at least one transition comprises at least one of: a. the MT of the IAB node operates in TDM to the DU of the IAB node in a TDM mode, b. the MT of the IAB node operates in the TDM to the DU of the IAB node operates in simultaneous reception, c. the MT of the IAB node operates in TDM to the DU of the IAB node operates in simultaneous transmission, d. the MT of the IAB node operates in simultaneous reception to the DU of the IAB node in TDM mode, e. the MT of the IAB node operates in simultaneous reception to the DU of the IAB node operates in simultaneous reception, f. the MT of the IAB node operates in simultaneous reception to the DU of the IAB node operates in simultaneous transmission, g. the MT of the IAB node operates in simultaneous transmission to the DU of the IAB node in TDM mode, h. the MT of the IAB node operates in simultaneous transmission to the DU of the IAB node operates in simultaneous reception, and i. the MT of the IAB node operates in simultaneous transmission to the DU of the IAB node operates in simultaneous transmission (Choi; para [0063] and thereinafter, multiplexing schemes to include TDM, FDM, and SDM are discussed. Or Jo; col. 34, lines 38-62 pertaining TABLE 7. It is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein reception at the DU of the IAB node is one of: a. when the IAB node operates in a TDM mode; b. when the IAB node operates in simultaneous reception; and c. when at least one child node operates in simultaneous transmission (Choi; paras [0062] to [0063], multiplexing schemes to include TDM, FDM, and SDM are discussed. Or Jo; col. 24, lines 1-8: TDM, FDM, and SDM are discussed. It is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein transmission at the MT of the IAB node is one of: a. when the IAB node operates in a TDM mode; and b. when the IAB node operates in simultaneous transmission (Choi; paras [0062] to [0063], multiplexing schemes to include TDM, FDM, and SDM are discussed. Or Jo; col. 24, lines 1-8: TDM, FDM, and SDM are discussed. It is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein determining is based on at least one of: a. a resource configuration of at least one of “the MT of the IAB node” and “the DU of the IAB node” before and after the transition, b. timing case active at the IAB node before and after the transition, c. a propagation delay (T1) between at least one parent node and the IAB node, d. a propagation delay (T2) between the IAB node (100) and at least one child node, e. a timing advance (TA) value used for uplink transmission at the MT of at least one of the IAB node and at least one child node, f. a switching time between transmission and reception required at the IAB node, and g. a numerology used for communication in a backhaul and one of a child link and access link of the IAB node (Jo; col. 31, lines 6-15 and thereinafter, numerology and parameter are discussed. It is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of receiving, by MT of the IAB node, actual guard duration for the at least one transition (Choi; para [0006] and thereinafter, guard interval is discussed. Or Jo; col. 20, line 67 to col. 21, line 4: “The GP provides a time gap when the base station and the UE switch from a transmission mode to a reception mode or from the reception mode to a transmission mode. Some symbols at the of a DL-to-UL switch in a subframe may be set to a GP.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein the actual guard duration is in terms of number of symbols (Choi; para [0021]: “… for some symbols of the first data corresponding to the guard interval from among the first data … the second data.” Or Jo; col. 20, line 67 to col. 21, line 4: “The GP provides a time gap when the base station and the UE switch from a transmission mode to a reception mode or from the reception mode to a transmission mode. Some symbols at eth the of a DL-to-UL switch in a subframe may be set to a GP.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 21, in addition to features recited in base claim 2 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein the first resource configuration comprises at least one of resource configuration for the DU of the IAB node; and the resource configuration of the DU of the at least one child node (Choi; FIGs. 2A-2B and paras [0058] to [0060] and thereinafter, resource between the IAB nodes is discussed. Or Jo, FIG. 23 and col. 30, line 36 to col. 31, line 59, resource type form MT-aspect and resource type for DU-aspect are discussed.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 22, in addition to features recited in base claim 21 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein the at least one first resource configuration comprises at least one of a. at least one downlink (DL) resource, b. at least one uplink (UL) resource, c. at least one flexible (F) resource, d. at least one hard (H) resource, e. at least one soft(S) resource, f. at least one not available (NA) resource, and g. configuration for cell specific signals/channels (CSSC) (Jo; col. 2, lines 43-45, resource types to include downlink, uplink, and flexible are discussed. It is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 23, in addition to features recited in base claim 2 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation of wherein the at least one second resource configuration comprises at least one of a. at least one downlink (DL) resource, b. at least one uplink (UL) resource, and c. at least one flexible (F) resource (Jo; col. 2, lines 43-45, resource types to include downlink, uplink, and flexible are discussed. It is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
Regarding claim 24, in addition to features recited in base claim 8 (see rationales discussed above), Choi in view of Jo also render obvious the claim limitation wherein the timing case is one of timing case for time division multiplexing (TDM) between MT and DU of the IAB node, timing case for simultaneous transmission at MT and DU of the IAB node, and timing case for simultaneous reception at MT and DU of the IAB node (Choi; para [0076]: “… a guard interval required for the IAB node 2 502 to transmit or receive backhaul data and then transmit or receive access data may be calculated as show in TABLE 1 … .”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jo’s teaching into Choi’s method to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed.
As per claim 29, the claim appears to call for an IAB node having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claim 1. Thus, it is deemed obvious over Choi in view of Jo for the same rationales applied to method claim 1 as above discussed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nam et al. (US 2020/0059879).
You et al. (US 2020/0229271).
Tiirola et al. (US 2021/0250941).
Jo et al. (US 11,412,482).
Jo et al. (US 11,503,586).
Luo et al. (US 2020/0145997).
Park et al. (US 2019/0053183).
Abedini et al. (US 10,945,226).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights