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 in response to remarks filed 08/05/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2023/0054244 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 8, Liu discloses an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor coupled to one or more memories (see para. 0012-0016), the one or more memories is configured to store non-transitory instructions, the at least one processor is configured to execute the non-transitory instructions to thereby perform operations comprising:
receiving a first message from a second node (see para. 0043, migration request), wherein the first message is useable to indicate to reconfigure a resource in a first topology (see para. 0043-0047, reconfiguring IAB from source topology), and the resource is useable to serve first traffic (see para. 0032, fig. 1, discloses IAB serving UE), the first topology is controlled by a first node (see para. 0043-0047, discloses source CU controlling by sending a message), and the first traffic is of a third node or of a downstream node of the third node (see para. 0032, fig. 1, discloses IAB node serving UE downstream); and
reconfiguring, based on the first message, the resource in the first topology (see para. 0043-0047, discloses reconfiguring IAB from source CU to target DU),
wherein a radio resource control (RRC) connection between the third node and each of the first node and the second node (see fig. 3, discloses IAB node has connection to CU using RRC, i.e. RRC connection to source and target CUs), there is an F1 connection between the third node and the second node (see fig. 3, discloses F1 connection from IAB node to CU, i.e. FI connection to source and target CUs), the first node is a first central unit (CU) in a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) donor node, and the second node is a second CU in a second IAB donor node (see fig. 3, 5, para. 0039, 0050, discloses first and second CU nodes).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor coupled to one or more memories (see para. 0012-0016), the one or more memories is configured to store non-transitory instructions, the at least one processor is configured to execute the non-transitory instructions to thereby perform operations comprising:
determining a first message, wherein the first message is useable to indicate to reconfigure a resource in a first topology (see para. 0043-0047, reconfiguring IAB from source topology), and the resource is useable to serve first traffic (see para. 0032, fig. 1, discloses IAB serving UE), the first topology is controlled by a first node (see para. 0043-0047, discloses source CU controlling by sending a message), and the first traffic is of a third node or of a downstream node of the third node (see para. 0032, fig. 1, discloses IAB node serving UE downstream); and
sending the first message to the first node (see fig. 5, 201),
wherein there is a radio resource control (RRC) connection between the third node and each of the first node and the second node (see fig. 3, discloses IAB node has connection to CU using RRC, i.e. RRC connection to source and target CUs), there is an F1 connection between the third node and the second node (see fig. 3, discloses F1 connection from IAB node to CU, i.e. FI connection to source and target CUs), the first node is a first central unit (CU) in a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) donor node, and the second node is a second CU in a second IAB donor node (see fig. 3, 5, para. 0039, 0050, discloses first and second CU nodes).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Liu discloses the method or an apparatus wherein the first message comprises at least one of: indication information useable for reconfiguring all resources of the first traffic (see para. 0043-0047, 50, 63, discloses reconfiguration information, such as context), a resource corresponding to a quality of service index in the resource useable to serve the first traffic (optional element), or a resource corresponding to a tunnel endpoint identifier (TEID) in the resource useable to serve the first traffic (optional element).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Liu discloses the method or an apparatus wherein the first message is further useable to indicate a traffic control trigger reason (see para. 0056, the first message indicates congestion status as reason).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Liu discloses the method or an apparatus wherein the traffic control trigger reason comprises: a notification that congestion occurs, or a signal quality does not satisfy a quality requirement (see para. 0056, the first message indicates congestion status as reason).
Regarding claims 6, 13, Liu discloses the method or an apparatus wherein the method further comprises: sending a first feedback of the first message to the second node, wherein the first feedback is useable to trigger the second node to reconfigure a resource in a second topology, and is useable to serve the first traffic, and the second topology is controlled by the second node (see para. 0062, 0064, 0067-0072, 0077, discloses response message and reconfiguration complete message to trigger and confirm the migration).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Liu discloses the method or an apparatus wherein the second topology comprises a distributed unit (DU) of the second node (see fig. 2, discloses each IAB comprises at one DU).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses the apparatus wherein the operations further comprises: receiving a first feedback of the first message from the first node (see para. 0062, 0064, 0067-0072, 0077, discloses response message and reconfiguration complete message to trigger and confirm the migration); and reconfiguring, in response to the first feedback, a resource in a second topology, and is useable to serve the first traffic, wherein the second topology is controlled by the second node (see para. 0062, 0064, 0067-0072, 0077, discloses response message and reconfiguration complete message to trigger and confirm the migration).
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 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Regarding claim 3, 10, 17, Liu discloses the method or an apparatus wherein the first message is an Xn message.
Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to communicate messages between CUs or base stations using Xn messages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include communication of a first message in an Xn message.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow communicating over well-known standardized interface promoting interoperability and compatibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references to para. 0039 and fig. 3, 5, 8 do not disclose two IAB donor nodes. Referring to fig. 3, Applicant notes that the figure only discloses a single IAB donor node. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims are to be given broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Referring to Applicant specification, the specification does not explicitly define IAB donor node to carry a special definition. For example, Applicant has not defined the IAB donor node to be different in composition than regular IAB nodes. In fact, both the IAB donor node and IAB node comprises a CU providing connectivity. As such, the IAB nodes of Liu read on applicant first and second CU as they provide as they comprise CU and provide connectivity in similar way. As such, applicant arguments that Liu does not disclose two IAB donor nodes are not persuasive. If applicant desires to distinguish the claim because the way the certain nodes a configured to provide service in the network, then applicant is invited to clarify it accordingly in the claim such configurations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NISHANT B DIVECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3125. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-6:00 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, Deborah J. Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
NISHANT B. DIVECHA
Supervisory Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights