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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Indian Application No. 202423016627, filed on March 7, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Please remove all numerical tags from system elements in each claim. For example, in claim 1: “A wireless communication network comprising: at least one relay node ; an edge cloud ; a core cloud ; and a Data Network (DN) , wherein the network uses different Radio Access Technologies (RATs) for access, and backhaul”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250267529 A1 (hereinafter Sun) in view of Song et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220232402 A1 (hereinafter Song).
Regarding Claim 1, Sun discloses a wireless communication network (e.g., FIG. 2) comprising; at least one relay node (e.g., ¶ [0060] In an IAB network, an IAB node may also be referred to as a relay node (RN), and includes an MT (mobile termination) part and a DU (distributed unit) part. When facing a parent node of the IAB node, the IAB node may serve as a user equipment, that is, a role of the MT. When facing a child node of the IAB node (the child node may be another IAB node or a common UE), the IAB node is considered as a network device, that is, a role of the DU [i.e., gNB-DU communicating with RN-MT]); an edge cloud (e.g., ¶ [0061] the central unit of the donor node is briefly referred to as a donor CU (or CU) … the donor CU… in a form in which a control plane (CP) is separated from a user plane (UP). For example, the CU may include one CU-CP and one CU-UP (or more CU-UPs) [i.e., CU communicating with user plane function]); a core cloud (e.g., ¶ [0061] donor node may also be referred to as an IAB donor (IAB donor) or a donor base station (DgNB, donor gNodeB). The donor node may be an access network element having a complete base station function… connected to a core (for example, connected to a 5G core (5GC)) network element that provides a service for the UE, and provides a wireless backhaul function for the IAB node); and a data network (DN) (e.g., ¶ [0062] The IAB node is connected to a core network via the donor node. For example, in a 5G standalone (standalone, SA) architecture, the IAB node is connected to the 5GC via the donor node [i.e., 5GC is data network, or core network and external services that deliver data to and from the UE]).
Sun does not expressly disclose where the network uses different Radio Access Technologies (RATs) for access, and backhaul.
Song discloses where the network uses different Radio Access Technologies (RATs) for access, and backhaul (e.g., ¶ [0048] relay communication scheme may have a two-step structure of a backhaul link between the external base station and the relay terminal and an access link between the relay terminal and each of the user terminals; e.g., ¶ [0049] The backhaul link and the access link may be based on the same radio access technology (RAT) or different RATs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of relay node between access network and data network, as disclosed by Sun, with the disclosure of using different Radio Access Technologies (RATs) for access, and backhaul, as disclosed by Song. The motivation to combine would have been to mitigate signal attenuation and other performance degradation factors (Song: e.g., ¶ [0048]).
Regarding Claim 2, Sun in view of Song disclose all the limitations of the wireless communication network, as claimed in claim 1.
Sun discloses wherein the relay node further comprises at least one radio stack, and at least one complete Relay Node - Mobile Termination (RN-MT) stack, wherein at least one radio stack can support connectivity with at least one User Equipment (e.g., ¶ [0060] In an IAB network, an IAB node may also be referred to as a relay node (RN), and includes an MT (mobile termination) part and a DU (distributed unit) part. When facing a parent node of the IAB node, the IAB node may serve as a user equipment, that is, a role of the MT. When facing a child node of the IAB node (the child node may be another IAB node or a common UE), the IAB node is considered as a network device, that is, a role of the DU [i.e., gNB-DU communicating with RN-MT]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sun in view of Song disclose all the limitations of the wireless communication network, as claimed in claim 2.
Sun does not expressly disclose wherein at least one radio stack, and the RN-MT stack can: use different RATs for access, and backhaul; and use the same RATs for access, and backhaul.
Song discloses wherein at least one radio stack, and the RN-MT stack can: use different RATs for access, and backhaul; and use the same RATs for access, and backhaul (e.g., ¶ [0049] The backhaul link and the access link may be based on the same radio access technology (RAT) or different RATs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of relay node between access network and data network, as disclosed by Sun, with the disclosure of using different Radio Access Technologies (RATs) for access, and backhaul, as disclosed by Song. The motivation to combine would have been to mitigate signal attenuation and other performance degradation factors (Song: e.g., ¶ [0048]).
Regarding Claim 4, Sun in view of Song disclose all the limitations of the wireless communication network, as claimed in claim 1.
Sun discloses wherein the at least one relay node is in communication with the edge cloud via a gNB (e.g., ¶ [0060] In an IAB network, an IAB node may also be referred to as a relay node (RN); e.g., ¶ [0061] the central unit of the donor node is briefly referred to as a donor CU (or CU) … the donor CU… in a form in which a control plane (CP) is separated from a user plane (UP). For example, the CU may include one CU-CP and one CU-UP (or more CU-UPs) [i.e., CU communicating with user plane function, interpreted as functions in an edge cloud]… donor node may also be referred to as an IAB donor (IAB donor) or a donor base station (DgNB, donor gNodeB); e.g., ¶ [0062] The IAB node is connected to a core network via the donor node. For example, in a 5G standalone (standalone, SA) architecture, the IAB node is connected to the 5GC via the donor node [i.e., 5GC is data network, or core network and external services that deliver data to and from the UE]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sun in view of Song disclose all the limitations of the wireless communication network, as claimed in claim 1.
Sun discloses wherein the edge cloud further comprises a proxy node, and a first User Plane Function (UPF), wherein Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity between the relay node and the proxy node is facilitated through a 5G System provided PDU (IP) connectivity service established using the at least one complete RN-MT stack (e.g., ¶ [0061] the central unit of the donor node is briefly referred to as a donor CU (or CU) [the central unit of the donor node is being interpreted as the proxy node]… the donor CU… in a form in which a control plane (CP) is separated from a user plane (UP). For example, the CU may include one CU-CP and one CU-UP (or more CU-UPs) [i.e., CU communicating with user plane function is being interpreted as functions of proxy node]… donor node may also be referred to as an IAB donor (IAB donor) or a donor base station (DgNB, donor gNodeB). The donor node may be an access network element having a complete base station function… connected to a core (for example, connected to a 5G core (5GC)) network element that provides a service for the UE, and provides a wireless backhaul function for the IAB node; e.g., ¶ [0062] The IAB node is connected to a core network via the donor node [i.e., 5GC is data network, delivering data to and from the UE]).
Regarding Claim 6, Sun in view of Song disclose all the limitations of the wireless communication network, as claimed in claim 5.
Sun discloses wherein the proxy node comprises a core interface network stack, wherein the core-interface network stack connects with a core network (e.g., ¶ [0061] donor node may also be referred to as an IAB donor (IAB donor) or a donor base station (DgNB, donor gNodeB). The donor node may be an access network element having a complete base station function… connected to a core (for example, connected to a 5G core (5GC)) network element; e.g., ¶ [0062] The IAB node is connected to a core network via the donor node).
Regarding Claim 7, Sun in view of Song disclose all the limitations of the wireless communication network, as claimed in claim 1.
Sun does not expressly disclose wherein a first RAT can be used for access, and a second RAT can be used for backhaul.
Song discloses wherein a first RAT can be used for access, and a second RAT can be used for backhaul (e.g., ¶ [0048] relay communication scheme may have a two-step structure of a backhaul link between the external base station and the relay terminal and an access link between the relay terminal and each of the user terminals; e.g., ¶ [0049] The backhaul link and the access link may be based on the same radio access technology (RAT) or different RATs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of relay node between access network and data network, as disclosed by Sun, with the disclosure of using different Radio Access Technologies (RATs) for access, and backhaul, as disclosed by Song. The motivation to combine would have been to mitigate signal attenuation and other performance degradation factors (Song: e.g., ¶ [0048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights