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 .
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 20-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. However, the claims will be given a broad reasonable interpretation for the purposes of examination as best understood.
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 Akl US 20210152515
20. A method, comprising:
sending, by a first node served by a first master cell group (MCG) and a first secondary cell group (SCG), radio link failure (RLF) indication information to a second node when the first SCG is 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 (Akl: fig. 6-8 unit 840 [0088-0102, 0092] radio link failure (RLF) on a link to a secondary cell group of the IAB node or an upstream IAB node…. [0088, 0102] the IAB node may perform a communication using the updated identifier to Child node), wherein the second node is a child node of the first node (Akl: fig. 6-8 unit 840 [0088-0102, 0092] the IAB node may perform a communication using the updated identifier to Child node).
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) 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akl US 20210152515 in view of Hwang US 20250071841
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 is 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 when the first SCG is 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
Akl merely discloses the term recovery
Hwang further teaches sending, by the first node, the RLF indication to the second node when the first SCG is 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, andlink recovery is performed (Hwang: fig. 11, unit 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)).
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 Akl’s invention in order to perform the rewriting operation and routing operation based on the target topology again [0165], as taught by Hwang.
22. The method according to claim 20, wherein that the first SCG is for transmitting an F1 interface user plane service comprises: the first SCG is for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service based on a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer (Hwang: [0008, 0183] BAP configuration, routing configuration).
23. The method according to claim 20, wherein the first MCG dedicated to transmitting an F1 interface control plane service, and the RLF indication information indicates that the RLF occurs on a node-granularity link between the first node and the second node (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 (Hwang: [0173] (i.e., RLF recovery indication)).
25. The method according to claim 20, wherein the first MCG is also for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service, and the RLF indication information comprises a first BAP address, a first routing identifier (ID), or a first path identifier path ID (Hwang: [0169] configuration information for local routing based on the topology of CU1 to the boundary IAB node 1030 (S1006)).
26. The method according to claim 25, 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: [0153] there is only one egress link in the UL direction or… there is no link to forward packets when the egress link becomes unavailable).
Regarding claims 27-38, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 20-26, 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 Jia US 20240259907
20. A method, comprising:
sending, by a first node served by a first master cell group (MCG) and a first secondary cell group (SCG), radio link failure (RLF) indication information to a second node when the first SCG is 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, wherein the second node is a child node of the first node (Jia: IAB-MT deems that the SCG has detected an RLF, step 1403: transmitting the backhaul link radio link failure notification by a DU of the first IAB-node to a descendant IAB-node of the first IAB-node).
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) 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia US 20240259907 in view of Hwang US 20250071841
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 is 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 when the first SCG is 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
Jia merely discloses the term recovery
Hwang further teaches sending, by the first node, the RLF indication to the second node when the first SCG is 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, andlink recovery is performed (Hwang: fig. 11, unit 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)).
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 Jia’s invention in order to perform the rewriting operation and routing operation based on the target topology again [0165], as taught by Hwang.
22. The method according to claim 20, wherein that the first SCG is for transmitting an F1 interface user plane service comprises: the first SCG is for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service based on a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer (Hwang: [0008, 0183] BAP configuration, routing configuration).
23. The method according to claim 20, wherein the first MCG dedicated to transmitting an F1 interface control plane service, and the RLF indication information indicates that the RLF occurs on a node-granularity link between the first node and the second node (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 (Hwang: [0173] (i.e., RLF recovery indication)).
25. The method according to claim 20, wherein the first MCG is also for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service, and the RLF indication information comprises a first BAP address, a first routing identifier (ID), or a first path identifier path ID (Hwang: [0169] configuration information for local routing based on the topology of CU1 to the boundary IAB node 1030 (S1006)).
26. The method according to claim 25, 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: [0153] there is only one egress link in the UL direction or… there is no link to forward packets when the egress link becomes unavailable).
Regarding claims 27-38, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 20-26, 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) and a first secondary cell group (SCG), radio link failure (RLF) indication information to a second node when the first SCG is 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 (Hwang: fig. 11, unit S1110 [0184] the boundary IAB node 1130 may directly detect that an RLF has occurred in the link to the SCG parent IAB node 1140, or may detect it by receiving an RLF detection indication for the link from the SCG parent IAB node 1140. When an RLF is detected in this way, the boundary IAB node 1130 may transmit a type 2 RLF indication to the child IAB node 1160), wherein the second node is a child node of the first node (Hwang: fig. 11, unit S1160 [0184] child IAB node 1160).
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 is 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 when the first SCG is 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 (Hwang: fig. 11, unit 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)).
22. The method according to claim 20, wherein that the first SCG is for transmitting an F1 interface user plane service comprises: the first SCG is for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service based on a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer (Hwang: [0008, 0183] BAP configuration, routing configuration).
23. The method according to claim 20, wherein the first MCG dedicated to transmitting an F1 interface control plane service, and the RLF indication information indicates that the RLF occurs on a node-granularity link between the first node and the second node (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 (Hwang: [0173] (i.e., RLF recovery indication)).
25. The method according to claim 20, wherein the first MCG is also for transmitting the F1 interface user plane service, and the RLF indication information comprises a first BAP address, a first routing identifier (ID), or a first path identifier path ID (Hwang: [0169] configuration information for local routing based on the topology of CU1 to the boundary IAB node 1030 (S1006)).
26. The method according to claim 25, 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: [0153] there is only one egress link in the UL direction or… there is no link to forward packets when the egress link becomes unavailable).
Regarding claims 27-38, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 20-26, 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights