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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 20-21, 23-24, 27-33, 35-36, 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb WO 2021028807 in view of Hwang US 20250071841
20. A method, comprising:
sending, by a first node served by a first master cell group (MCG) (Teyeb: fig. 7-10 background - e.g., IAB with SC: IAB-MT connects to an MN (MCG) and an SN (SCG)) and a first secondary cell group (SCG), radio link failure (RLF) indication information to a second node in response to a first triggering condition being met (Teyeb: fig. 7-10 background - backhaul RLF notification Types 1-4 to downstream nodes), wherein the first triggering condition is that the first SCG is for transmitting an F1 interface user plane service based on a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer (Teyeb: fig. 9-10A-C: F1-U terminated at the IAB node, carries over BAP backhaul RLC channels; no SCG assignment), the first MCG is dedicated to transmitting an F1 interface control plane service (Teyeb: background, IAB with DC - SRB1/2 via the MN, SRB3 optional via the SN; RRC signaling, not F1-C), no radio link failure (RLF) occurs in the first MCG (Teyeb: summery, first set of embodiment - SCG failure information goes to the donor CU via the MN link works), and an RLF occurs in the first SCG (Teyeb: summery, first set of embodiment - RLF notification from the SN triggers SCG failure recovery), wherein the second node is a child node of the first node (Teyeb: child IAB node receives notification).
Teyeb merely discloses the term “memory”
Hwang teaches the term memory (Hwang: [0026] usable or readable memory)
Hwang further teaches sending, by a first node served by a first master cell group (MCG) (Hwang: fig. 7 – MCG link of RRC entity is donor 1 (710); SCG link is donor 2 (720); boundary node IAB node 2 (730)) and a first secondary cell group (SCG), radio link failure (RLF) indication information to a second node in response to a first triggering condition being met (Hwang: fig. 11, S1109 – (RLF on SCG link) then S1110 (type 2 RLF indication to child 1160); Solution 2, item A), wherein the first triggering condition is that the first SCG is for transmitting an F1 interface user plane service based on a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer (Hwang: fig. 7 – solution 1: donor 1’s backhaul traffic offloaded over donor 2’s topology as BAP packets; F1 connection to the first donor CU. F1_U on the SCG leg is not named), the first MCG is dedicated to transmitting an F1 interface control plane service (Hwang: fig. 7 – termination point is donor 1 (MCG side)), no radio link failure (RLF) occurs in the first MCG (Hwang: solution 1 – (MCG link as backup egress); implies a working MCG, not stated as a condition), and an RLF occurs in the first SCG (Hwang: fig. 8 – RLF in SCG link; fig. 11, S11109), wherein the second node is a child node of the first node (Hwang: fig, 11, child IAB node 1160 (S1110).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Teyeb’s invention in order to perform the rewriting operation and routing operation based on the target topology again [0165], as taught by Hwang.
21. The method according to claim 20, wherein sending, by the first node, the RLF indication information to the second node when the first SCG being for transmitting an F1 interface user plane service, no radio link failure RLF occurs in the first MCG, and an RLF occurs in the first SCG comprises: sending, by the first node, the RLF indication to the second node in response to the first SCG being for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service, no radio link failure RLF occurs in the first MCG, the RLF occurs in the first SCG, and link recovery is performed (Teyeb: summery, first set of embodiment - Type 2 “trying to recover” and Type 3 “BH link recovered”; SCG failure recovery; Hwang: fig. 11, unit S1111-S1118 [0186] the boundary IAB node 1130 performing traffic offloading through a local rerouting operation may transmit a type 3 RLF indication indicating that the RLF has been recovered to the child IAB node 1160 (S1118)).
23. The method according to claim 20, wherein the RLF indication information indicates that the RLF occurs on a node-granularity link between the first node and the second node (Teyeb: summery, first set of embodiment – SRB1/2 via the MN (RRC, not F1-C); Hwang: fig. 7).
24. The method according to claim 23, wherein that the RLF indication information indicates that the RLF occurs on a node-granularity link between the first node and the second node comprises: the RLF indication information indicates that the RLF occurs on the node-granularity link between the first node and the second node and link recovery is performed (Teyeb: summery, first set of embodiment – Type 2 (“trying to recover”) and Type 3 (recovered); Hwang: [0173] fig. 11, S1111-S1118 “Type 3” (i.e., RLF recovery indication)).
28. The method according to claim 27, wherein that the first MCG is for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service comprises: the first MCG is for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service based on a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer (Teyeb: summery, first set of embodiment – BAP section – (IAB-DU BAP stops forwarding; Hwang: fig. 7, solution 1 – BAP packets).
29. The method according to claim 27, wherein the first SCG is dedicated to transmitting an F1 interface control plane service (Teyeb: summery, first set of embodiment – SRB3 optional toward the SN (RRC); Hwang: fig. 7 RRC connection with donor 2), and the RLF indication information indicates that the RLF occurs on a node-granularity link between the first node and the second node (Teyeb: summery, first set of embodiment – Types 1-4 are link-level; Hwang: 11, S1110 – routing ID content is a risk).
30. The method according to claim 27, wherein the first SCG is also for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service, no RLF occurs in the first SCG, and the RLF indication information comprises a first BAP address, a first routing identifier (ID), or a first path identifier path ID (Hwang: fig. 11, S1110 – information about the routing ID before header rewriting).
31. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 30, further comprising: determining, by the first node, all paths that pass through the first node to a destination node are unavailable, wherein the RLF indication information comprises the first BAP address, and the first BAP address is a BAP address of the destination node; determining, by the first node, a path of the first path ID is unavailable in all paths that pass through the first node to a destination node, wherein the RLF indication information comprises the first path ID; or determining, by the first node, a path of the first routing ID is unavailable in all paths that pass through the first node to a destination node, wherein the RLF indication information comprises the first routing ID (Hwang: 11, S1111 – local routing ID and rerouting after link RLF).
40. The method according to claim 20, further comprising: not sending, by the first node, the RLF indication information to the second node in response to the first MCG being for transmitting an F1 control plane service (Teyeb: fig. 16, case 1 – no notification to downstream nodes and case 3 – type 4 sent only after re-establishment fails; Hwang: 11, S11109-S1110 – 1841 send on SCG RLF only), the first SCG is for transmitting the F1 user plane service (Teyeb: fig. 9, 10A-C (F1-U over BAP); Hwang: fig. 7 solution 1 – BAP over the SCG leg), the RLF occurs in the first MCG (Teyeb: second set embodiment – MN RLF notification triggers MCG failure recovery via the SN), and RLF occurs in the first SCG (Teyeb: recovery via a working SN; Hwang: SCG is the working offload path).
Regarding claims 27, 32-33, 34-36, 41-42, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 20-21, 23-24, 28-31, 40, where the difference used is a “apparatus” with a processor and a memory and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Hwang US 20250071841
20. A method, comprising:
sending, by a first node served by a first master cell group (MCG) (Hwang: fig. 7 – MCG link of RRC entity is donor 1 (710); SCG link is donor 2 (720); boundary node IAB node 2 (730)) and a first secondary cell group (SCG), radio link failure (RLF) indication information to a second node in response to a first triggering condition being met (Hwang: fig. 11, S1109 – (RLF on SCG link) then S1110 (type 2 RLF indication to child 1160); Solution 2, item A), wherein the first triggering condition is that the first SCG is for transmitting an F1 interface user plane service based on a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer (Hwang: fig. 7 – solution 1: donor 1’s backhaul traffic offloaded over donor 2’s topology as BAP packets; F1 connection to the first donor CU. F1_U on the SCG leg is not named), the first MCG is dedicated to transmitting an F1 interface control plane service (Hwang: fig. 7 – termination point is donor 1 (MCG side)), no radio link failure (RLF) occurs in the first MCG (Hwang: solution 1 – (MCG link as backup egress); implies a working MCG, not stated as a condition), and an RLF occurs in the first SCG (Hwang: fig. 8 – RLF in SCG link; fig. 11, S11109), wherein the second node is a child node of the first node (Hwang: fig, 11, child IAB node 1160 (S1110).
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 20-21, 23-24, 27-33, 35-36, 40-42 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is (571) 270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski, can be reached on (571) 270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
