DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to an application filed on July 23, 2024. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Relevant Technical Information Submittal Requirement
Requirement — Overview
The applicant is required to submit copies of non-patent literature and relevant technical information as set forth below.
Basis for Requirement
35 U.S.C. § 131 provides:
The Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor.
37 C.F.R. § 1.105(a) provides:
In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 371 (including a reissue application), in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example:
….
(iii) Related information: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign), by any of the inventors, that relates to the claimed invention.
(iv) Information used to draft application: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft the application.
(v) Information used in invention process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result.
…
(viii) Technical information known to applicant. Technical information known to applicant concerning the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Background
The applicant has stated in a publicly available European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI) record that the present application, Application No. 18/781,606 (“the Application”), “may be or may become ESSENTIAL in relation to at least the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex.”1
Necessity for this Requirement.
This Requirement is issued pursuant to the Director’s duty and authority to examine patent applications. See 35 U.S.C. § 131; 37 C.F.R. § 1.105(a). The ETSI record indicates the applicant likely possesses information relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) that is necessary for a more complete understanding of the invention and its context. See MPEP § 704.11. Such information may include non-patent literature and technical materials (e.g., contribution papers or Tdocs) authored, generated, or submitted by the applicant or others that form the basis of, or resulted from, the claimed invention.
Applicant is Required to Submit:
Copies of any non-patent literature relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the ETSI record for the Application, which satisfies any of the following criteria:
Authored by any of the inventors and related to the claimed invention,
Used to draft the present application, or
Used in the invention process (for example, used to design around prior art or to provide a solution that enabled the claimed invention); and
Any technical information known to the applicant relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the ETSI record for the Application, which concerns the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Instructions to Applicant
A complete reply to this Requirement is a reply to each enumerated requirement for information giving either the information required or a statement that the information required to be submitted is unknown and/or is not readily available to the applicant. There is no requirement for the applicant to show that the required information was not, in fact, readily attainable, but the applicant is required to make a good faith attempt to obtain the information and to make a reasonable inquiry once the information is requested. See MPEP § 704.12(b).
This Requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR §§ 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and is accorded the same period for reply as the action on the merits sent with this Requirement. See MPEP § 704.13 (third paragraph). EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136 (a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 18 each recites, in lines 1-2, the limitations “the second indication further indicates for the second CU to release all data traffic associated with the first CU;” and “the first indication further indicates for the second CU to release all data traffic associated with the first CU,” respectively.
It is unclear whether i) the [first] second indication indicates to the second CU that the second CU is to release all data traffic associated with the first CU; or ii) the second CU is being notified by the [first] second indication that the first CU is releasing all data traffic associated with the first CU.
Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is construed, in light of the recitation of claims 1 and 10, from which claims 9 and 18 respectively depend, i.e., “a [first] second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications via the signaling connection,” where the signaling connection being the F1 connection to the first CU, to mean the alternative construction ii) above.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recited the limitation “the backhaul resources.”
There is not sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is construed to mean “a backhaul resources.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Fig. 4 does not include the reference numeral 420 described in the specification at ¶¶[0106]-[0107].
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. 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section151, 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 1-3, 6, 9, 10-12, 15, 18-23 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US 2023/0262790, cited by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses a first central unit (CU) (Fig. 9, “IAB donor-CU 1”, see, ¶[0136], “a source IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 1 in FIG. 9)”. See, also Fig. 23, #1102), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 23, #11021, see, ¶[0304], “FIG. 23 is a schematic diagram of a … communication device … may be … a source donor node;” and ¶[0304], “The CU 1102 may include … at least one memory 11021.”); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first CU (Fig. 23, #11022, see, ¶[0304], “The CU 1102 may include at least one processor 11022;” and ¶[0305], “the CU 1102 may be configured to control the communication device to perform an operation procedure in the foregoing method embodiments.”) to:
establish a signaling connection (See, e.g., Fig. 9, “F1 connection” between “IAB donor-Cu 1” and “IAB-DU;” and ¶[0133], “Before handover, the handover IAB-DU may set up an F1 connection to a source IAB donor-CU”) with an access node (See, Fig. 9, the box containing “IAB-MT” and “IAB-DU;” and ¶[0137], “the handover IAB node”), wherein the access node has a radio resource control (RRC) connection (See, Fig. 9, the connection arrow between “IAB-MT” and “IAB donor-CU 2;” ¶[0136], “After IAB-MT handover, the handover IAB-MT is connected to a target IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 2 in FIG. 9);” Figs. 5 and 6, “BH RLC CH;” Fig. 8B, “9: RRCReconfigurationComplete message;” and ¶[0125], “The handover IAB-MT sends an RRCReconfigurationComplete message to the IAB-DU of the target parent node.”) with a second CU (Fig. 9, “IAB donor-CU 2”), and wherein the signaling connection is used for backhauling of communications (See, Figs. 5 & 6, “F1-C” and “F1-U;” ¶[0103], “When the IAB donor uses a CP-UP split architecture, an F1-C interface is established between the IAB 2-DU and a donor CU-CP;” ¶[0104], “an F1-U interface is established between an IAB 2-DU and a donor CU-UP;” and ¶[0102], A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”) for user equipments [sic] (UEs) (See, e.g., Fig. 4, “UE”) that are served by the access node (See, Fig. 4; and ¶[0102], “An IAB node accessed by the UE is referred to as the access IAB node”);
transmit, to the access node, a first indication2 (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Target IAB donor” to the “IAB-DU/IAB/MT,”) associated with suspension3 (See, Figs. 12 and 13, the “F1AP: F1 Removal Request,” corresponding, e.g., at least to the F1 release request, described to be an example of an indication associated with suspension (see, e.g., Applicant’s disclosure ¶[0110]). Further examples of Liu et al. disclosure that corresponds to various exemplar description by the Applicant as noted in the footnote 3 below include: ¶[0154], “The indication information 1 indicates that a donor-CU changes/updates, or indicates that an inter-CU is handed over, so that the IAB-DU subsequently triggers setup of an F1 connection to a target IAB donor-CU, emphasis added;” ¶[0162], The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection. For example, the indication information 2 may be an IP address allocated by the source IAB donor to the IAB node, an identifier of the source IAB donor-CU (for example, a name of the source IAB donor-CU), or indication information indicating (explicitly indicating) to delete the source F1 connection, emphasis added; ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay, emphasis added;” and ¶[0177], “the first message may further include information about duration of a timer…. After receiving the first message, the IAB node may start the timer; and then may release an F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after the timer expires, emphasis added;”) of the backhauling of the communications via the signaling connection (See, ¶[0188], “The source IAB donor node sending the first message to the IAB node through the target IAB donor node may mean that the source IAB donor node sends the first message to the IAB node through a target IAB donor-DU (the IAB donor-DU 2 in any inter-CU handover scenario in FIG. 9 to FIG. 11). In other words, the first message is sent without passing through a target IAB donor-CU (the IAB donor-CU 2 in any inter-CU handover scenario in FIG. 9 to FIG. 11).” See, also, Figs. 17 ad 18; and ¶[0171], “the source IAB donor may directly indicate the IAB node to delete/release the source F1 connection over a source path. As shown in FIG. 17, before the IAB-MT receives a handover command (or before handover is performed), the source IAB donor-CU sends an F1AP message to the IAB-DU, emphasis added.” See, Fig. 4, the “F-1” connection between IAB Donor Du and CU; ¶[0102[, “A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”); and
transmit, to the second CU, a second indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor” to the “Target IAB donor”) that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications via the signaling connection (See, ¶[0162], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection;” and ¶[0166], “To enable the target IAB donor-DU to perform corresponding routing and bearer mapping based on an IP packet received from the source IAB donor-CU, the source IAB donor-CU needs to send, to the target IAB donor-CU.”).
Regarding claim 2/1, Liu et al. discloses a first central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the second indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor” to the “Target IAB donor”) that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates release of an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node (See, ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” and ¶[0153], “the source IAB donor-CU sends an F1AP message to the IAB-DU through the target IAB donor. After receiving the message, the IAB-DU deletes/releases the source F1 connection.”).
Regarding claim 3/1, Liu et al. discloses a first central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the second indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor” to the “Target IAB donor”) that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node is maintained during the suspension of the backhauling (See, ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” ¶[0159], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection;” ¶[0177], “the first message may further include information about duration of a timer…. After receiving the first message, the IAB node may start the timer; and then may release an F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after the timer expires;” and ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay.”).
Regarding claim 6/1, Liu et al. discloses a first central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that: the first indication indicates a request to release an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node (See, ¶[0162], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection;” and ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection.”); and the second indication indicates that the first CU has requested to release the F1 connection (See, Fig. 12; ¶[0162], “the indication information 2 may be an … indication information indicating (explicitly indicating) to delete the source F1 connection;” and ¶[0166], “To enable the target IAB donor-DU to perform corresponding routing and bearer mapping based on an IP packet received from the source IAB donor-CU, the source IAB donor-CU needs to send, to the target IAB donor-CU.”).
Regarding claim 9/1, Liu et al. discloses a first central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the second indication further indicates for the second CU to release all data traffic associated with the first CU (See, ¶[0147], “the IAB node needs to … delete/release an F1 connection to the source IAB donor. The IAB node includes a handover IAB node and a downstream IAB node (for example, a child node, a grandchild node, or a descendant node of the grandchild node) of the handover IAB node;” and ¶[0193], “as shown in FIG. 12, after IAB-MT handover completes, for example, after the source IAB donor-CU receives a UE Context Release message sent by the target IAB donor, the source IAB donor-CU sends an F1AP message to the IAB-DU through the target IAB donor. After receiving the message, the IAB-DU deletes/releases the source F1 connection,” emphasis added. Accordingly, the source IAB donor-CU, i.e., the first CU has no remaining connection to the IAB node, i.e., the access node.).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. discloses a second central unit (CU) (Fig. 9, “IAB donor-CU 2,” see, ¶[0136], “a target IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 2 in FIG. 9)”. See, also Fig. 23, #1102), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 23, #11021, see, ¶[0304], “The communication device may be … a target donor node in embodiments);” and ¶[0304], “The CU 1102 may include … at least one memory 11021.”); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second CU (Fig. 23, #11022, see, ¶[0304], “The CU 1102 may include at least one processor 11022;” and ¶[0305], “the CU 1102 may be configured to control the communication device to perform an operation procedure in the foregoing method embodiments.”) to:
establish a radio resource control (RRC) connection (See, Fig. 9, the connection arrow between “IAB-MT” and “IAB donor-CU 2;” ¶[0136], “After IAB-MT handover, the handover IAB-MT is connected to a target IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 2 in FIG. 9);” Figs. 5 and 6, “BH RLC CH;” Fig. 8B, “9: RRCReconfigurationComplete message;” and ¶[0125], “The handover IAB-MT sends an RRCReconfigurationComplete message to the IAB-DU of the target parent node.”) with an access node (See, Fig. 9, the box containing “IAB-MT” and “IAB-DU;” and ¶[0137], “the handover IAB node”), wherein the access node has a signaling connection (See, e.g., Fig. 9, “F1 connection” between “IAB donor-Cu 1” and “IAB-DU;” and ¶[0133], “Before handover, the handover IAB-DU may set up an F1 connection to a source IAB donor-CU”) with a first CU (Fig. 9, “IAB donor-CU 1”, see, ¶[0136], “a source IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 1 in FIG. 9)”) for backhauling of communications with user equipments [sic] (UEs) (See, e.g., Fig. 4, “UE”) served by the access node (See, Figs. 5 & 6, “F1-C” and “F1-U;” ¶[0103], “When the IAB donor uses a CP-UP split architecture, an F1-C interface is established between the IAB 2-DU and a donor CU-CP;” ¶[0104], “an F1-U interface is established between an IAB 2-DU and a donor CU-UP;” and ¶[0102], A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”);
receive a first indication4 (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor” to the “Target IAB donor”) that indicates a suspension5 of the backhauling of the communications via the signaling connection (See, Figs. 12 and 13, the “F1AP: F1 Removal Request,” corresponding, e.g., at least to the F1 release request, described to be an example of an indication associated with suspension (see, e.g., Applicant’s disclosure ¶[0110]). Further examples of Liu et al. disclosure that corresponds to various exemplar description by the Applicant as noted in the footnote 3 above include: ¶[0154], “The indication information 1 indicates that a donor-CU changes/updates, or indicates that an inter-CU is handed over, so that the IAB-DU subsequently triggers setup of an F1 connection to a target IAB donor-CU, emphasis added;” ¶[0162], The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection. For example, the indication information 2 may be an IP address allocated by the source IAB donor to the IAB node, an identifier of the source IAB donor-CU (for example, a name of the source IAB donor-CU), or indication information indicating (explicitly indicating) to delete the source F1 connection, emphasis added; ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay, emphasis added;” and ¶[0177], “the first message may further include information about duration of a timer…. After receiving the first message, the IAB node may start the timer; and then may release an F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after the timer expires, emphasis added;”) of the backhauling of the communications via the signaling connection (See, Fig. 4, the “F-1” connection between IAB Donor Du and CU; ¶[0102[, “A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”); and
transmit, to the access node, a second indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Target IAB donor” to the “IAB-DU/IAB/MT”) that indicates for the access node to release backhaul resources for support of the communications associated with the UEs based at least in part on receiving the first indication (See, ¶[0154], “The indication information 1 indicates that a donor-CU changes/updates, or indicates that an inter-CU is handed over, so that the IAB-DU subsequently triggers setup of an F1 connection to a target IAB donor-CU, emphasis added;” ¶[0162], The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection, emphasis added.;” Fig. 4; and ¶[0102], “Further, the IAB node may be further classified into an access IAB node and an intermediate IAB node. An IAB node accessed by the UE is referred to as the access IAB node, and an IAB node on a path between the access IAB node and the IAB donor is referred to as the intermediate IAB node….. A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”).
Regarding claim 11/10, Liu et al. discloses a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the second indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Target IAB donor” to the “IAB-DU/IAB/MT”) that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates release of an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node (See, ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” ¶[0153], “the source IAB donor-CU sends an F1AP message to the IAB-DU through the target IAB donor. After receiving the message, the IAB-DU deletes/releases the source F1 connection;” and ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay.”).
Regarding claim 12/10, Liu et al. discloses a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the second indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Target IAB donor” to the “IAB-DU/IAB/MT”) that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node is maintained during the suspension of the backhauling (See, ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” ¶[0159], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection;” ¶[0177], “the first message may further include information about duration of a timer…. After receiving the first message, the IAB node may start the timer; and then may release an F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after the timer expires;” and ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay.”).
Regarding claim 15/10, Liu et al. discloses a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the first indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor” to the “Target IAB donor”) indicates that the first CU has requested to release an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node (See, ¶[0162], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection;” and ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” ¶[0162], “the indication information 2 may be an … indication information indicating (explicitly indicating) to delete the source F1 connection;” and ¶[0166], “To enable the target IAB donor-DU to perform corresponding routing and bearer mapping based on an IP packet received from the source IAB donor-CU, the source IAB donor-CU needs to send, to the target IAB donor-CU.”).
Regarding claim 18/10, Liu et al. discloses a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the first indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor” to the “Target IAB donor”) further indicates for the second CU to release all data traffic associated with the first CU (See, ¶[0147], “the IAB node needs to … delete/release an F1 connection to the source IAB donor. The IAB node includes a handover IAB node and a downstream IAB node (for example, a child node, a grandchild node, or a descendant node of the grandchild node) of the handover IAB node;” and ¶[0193], “as shown in FIG. 12, after IAB-MT handover completes, for example, after the source IAB donor-CU receives a UE Context Release message sent by the target IAB donor, the source IAB donor-CU sends an F1AP message to the IAB-DU through the target IAB donor. After receiving the message, the IAB-DU deletes/releases the source F1 connection,” emphasis added. Accordingly, the source IAB donor-CU, i.e., the first CU has no remaining connection to the IAB node, i.e., the access node.).
Regarding claim 19/10, Liu et al. discloses a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the second CU receives the first indication from the access node or from the first CU (See, Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor,” i.e., the first CU, to the “Target IAB donor”).
Regarding claim 20/10, Liu et al. discloses a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the backhaul resources comprise a backhaul adaptation protocol address, a transport network layer address, a backhaul adaptation protocol reconfiguration, or a combination thereof (See, e.g., ¶[0259], the mapping relationship is a correspondence between the IP address allocated by the source IAB donor node to the IAB node and a backhaul adaptation protocol NAP address allocated by the target IAB donor node to the IAB node; and ¶[0164] “The F1AP message may be sent based on the old TNL association between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU.”).
Regarding claim 21, Liu et al. discloses a method for wireless communications (See, e.g., Figs. 12 and 13), at a first central unit (CU) (Fig. 9, “IAB donor-CU 1”, see, ¶[0136], “a source IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 1 in FIG. 9)”.), comprising:
establishing a signaling connection (See, e.g., Fig. 9, “F1 connection” between “IAB donor-Cu 1” and “IAB-DU;” and ¶[0133], “Before handover, the handover IAB-DU may set up an F1 connection to a source IAB donor-CU”) with an access node (See, Fig. 9, the box containing “IAB-MT” and “IAB-DU;” and ¶[0137], “the handover IAB node”), wherein the access node has a radio resource control (RRC) connection (See, Fig. 9, the connection arrow between “IAB-MT” and “IAB donor-CU 2;” ¶[0136], “After IAB-MT handover, the handover IAB-MT is connected to a target IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 2 in FIG. 9);” Figs. 5 and 6, “BH RLC CH;” Fig. 8B, “9: RRCReconfigurationComplete message;” and ¶[0125], “The handover IAB-MT sends an RRCReconfigurationComplete message to the IAB-DU of the target parent node.”) with a second CU (Fig. 9, “IAB donor-CU 2”), and wherein the signaling connection is used for backhauling of communications (See, Figs. 5 & 6, “F1-C” and “F1-U;” ¶[0103], “When the IAB donor uses a CP-UP split architecture, an F1-C interface is established between the IAB 2-DU and a donor CU-CP;” ¶[0104], “an F1-U interface is established between an IAB 2-DU and a donor CU-UP;” and ¶[0102], A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”) for user equipments [sic] (UEs) that are served by the access node (See, Fig. 4; and ¶[0102], “An IAB node accessed by the UE is referred to as the access IAB node”);
transmitting, to the access node, a first indication6 (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Target IAB donor” to the “IAB-DU/IAB/MT”) associated with suspension7 (See, Figs. 12 and 13, the “F1AP: F1 Removal Request,” corresponding, e.g., at least to the F1 release request, described to be an example of an indication associated with suspension (see, e.g., Applicant’s disclosure ¶[0110]). Further examples of Liu et al. disclosure that corresponds to various exemplar description by the Applicant as noted in the footnote 3 above include: ¶[0154], “The indication information 1 indicates that a donor-CU changes/updates, or indicates that an inter-CU is handed over, so that the IAB-DU subsequently triggers setup of an F1 connection to a target IAB donor-CU, emphasis added;” ¶[0162], The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection. For example, the indication information 2 may be an IP address allocated by the source IAB donor to the IAB node, an identifier of the source IAB donor-CU (for example, a name of the source IAB donor-CU), or indication information indicating (explicitly indicating) to delete the source F1 connection, emphasis added; ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay, emphasis added;” and ¶[0177], “the first message may further include information about duration of a timer…. After receiving the first message, the IAB node may start the timer; and then may release an F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after the timer expires, emphasis added;”) of the backhauling of the communications via the signaling connection (See, ¶[0188], “The source IAB donor node sending the first message to the IAB node through the target IAB donor node may mean that the source IAB donor node sends the first message to the IAB node through a target IAB donor-DU (the IAB donor-DU 2 in any inter-CU handover scenario in FIG. 9 to FIG. 11). In other words, the first message is sent without passing through a target IAB donor-CU (the IAB donor-CU 2 in any inter-CU handover scenario in FIG. 9 to FIG. 11).” See, also, Figs. 17 ad 18; and ¶[0171], “the source IAB donor may directly indicate the IAB node to delete/release the source F1 connection over a source path. As shown in FIG. 17, before the IAB-MT receives a handover command (or before handover is performed), the source IAB donor-CU sends an F1AP message to the IAB-DU, emphasis added.” See, Fig. 4, the “F-1” connection between IAB Donor Du and CU; ¶[0102[, “A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”); and
transmitting, to the second CU, a second indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor” to the “Target IAB donor”) that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications via the signaling connection ¶[0162], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection. For example, the indication information 2 may be an IP address allocated by the source IAB donor to the IAB node, an identifier of the source IAB donor-CU (for example, a name of the source IAB donor-CU);” and ¶[0166], “To enable the target IAB donor-DU to perform corresponding routing and bearer mapping based on an IP packet received from the source IAB donor-CU, the source IAB donor-CU needs to send, to the target IAB donor-CU.”).
Regarding claim 22/21, Liu et al. discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 21 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates release of an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node (See, ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” ¶[0153], “the source IAB donor-CU sends an F1AP message to the IAB-DU through the target IAB donor. After receiving the message, the IAB-DU deletes/releases the source F1 connection;” and ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay.”).
Regarding claim 23/21, Liu et al. discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 21 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node is maintained during the suspension of the backhauling (See, ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” ¶[0159], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection;” ¶[0177], “the first message may further include information about duration of a timer…. After receiving the first message, the IAB node may start the timer; and then may release an F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after the timer expires;” and ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay.”).
Regarding claim 26, Liu et al. discloses a method for wireless communications, at a second central unit (CU) (Fig. 9, “IAB donor-CU 2,” see, ¶[0136], “a target IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 2 in FIG. 9)”.), comprising:
establishing a radio resource control (RRC) connection (See, Fig. 9, the connection arrow between “IAB-MT” and “IAB donor-CU 2;” ¶[0136], “After IAB-MT handover, the handover IAB-MT is connected to a target IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 2 in FIG. 9);” Figs. 5 and 6, “BH RLC CH;” Fig. 8B, “9: RRCReconfigurationComplete message;” and ¶[0125], “The handover IAB-MT sends an RRCReconfigurationComplete message to the IAB-DU of the target parent node.”) with an access node (See, Fig. 9, the box containing “IAB-MT” and “IAB-DU;” and ¶[0137], “the handover IAB node”), wherein the access node has a signaling connection (See, e.g., Fig. 9, “F1 connection” between “IAB donor-Cu 1” and “IAB-DU;” and ¶[0133], “Before handover, the handover IAB-DU may set up an F1 connection to a source IAB donor-CU”) with a first CU (Fig. 9, “IAB donor-CU 1”, see, ¶[0136], “a source IAB donor-CU (for example, an IAB donor-CU 1 in FIG. 9)”) for backhauling of communications with user equipments [sic] (UEs) served by the access node (See, e.g., Fig. 4, “UE”) served by the access node (See, Figs. 5 & 6, “F1-C” and “F1-U;” ¶[0103], “When the IAB donor uses a CP-UP split architecture, an F1-C interface is established between the IAB 2-DU and a donor CU-CP;” ¶[0104], “an F1-U interface is established between an IAB 2-DU and a donor CU-UP;” and ¶[0102], A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”);
receiving a first indication that indicates a suspension of the backhauling of the communications via the signaling connection (See, Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Source IAB donor” to the “Target IAB donor;” ¶[0162], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection. For example, the indication information 2 may be an IP address allocated by the source IAB donor to the IAB node, an identifier of the source IAB donor-CU (for example, a name of the source IAB donor-CU);” ¶[0166], “To enable the target IAB donor-DU to perform corresponding routing and bearer mapping based on an IP packet received from the source IAB donor-CU, the source IAB donor-CU needs to send, to the target IAB donor-CU;” ¶[0154], “The indication information 1 indicates that a donor-CU changes/updates, or indicates that an inter-CU is handed over, so that the IAB-DU subsequently triggers setup of an F1 connection to a target IAB donor-CU;” and ¶[0162], The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection. For example, the indication information 2 may be an IP address allocated by the source IAB donor to the IAB node, an identifier of the source IAB donor-CU (for example, a name of the source IAB donor-CU), or indication information indicating (explicitly indicating) to delete the source F1 connection.”); and
transmitting, to the access node, a second indication (Figs. 12 and 13, “F1AP: F1 Removal Request” from the “Target IAB donor” to the “IAB-DU/IAB/MT”) that indicates for the access node to release backhaul resources for support of the communications associated with the UEs based at least in part on receiving the first indication (See, ¶[0154], “The indication information 1 indicates that a donor-CU changes/updates, or indicates that an inter-CU is handed over, so that the IAB-DU subsequently triggers setup of an F1 connection to a target IAB donor-CU, emphasis added;” ¶[0162], The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection, emphasis added.;” Fig. 4; and ¶[0102], “Further, the IAB node may be further classified into an access IAB node and an intermediate IAB node. An IAB node accessed by the UE is referred to as the access IAB node, and an IAB node on a path between the access IAB node and the IAB donor is referred to as the intermediate IAB node….. A link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB node 2 and a link between the IAB node 1 and the IAB donor are all referred to as backhaul links.”).
Regarding claim 27/26, Liu et al. discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 26 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates release of an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node (See, ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” ¶[0153], “the source IAB donor-CU sends an F1AP message to the IAB-DU through the target IAB donor. After receiving the message, the IAB-DU deletes/releases the source F1 connection;” and ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay.”).
Regarding claim 28/26, Liu et al. discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 26 as discussed above.
Liu et al. further discloses that the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that an F1 connection between the first CU and a distributed unit (DU) of the access node is maintained during the suspension of the backhauling (See, ¶[0149], “Herein, the F1 connection between the IAB-DU and the source IAB donor-CU is referred to as a source F1 connection;” ¶[0159], “The indication information 2 may implicitly or explicitly indicate to delete the source F1 connection;” ¶[0177], “the first message may further include information about duration of a timer…. After receiving the first message, the IAB node may start the timer; and then may release an F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after the timer expires;” and ¶[0222], “After receiving the first message, the IAB node may choose, based on an actual situation, to immediately release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node, or may choose to release the F1 connection to the CU of the source IAB donor node after a delay.”).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Zhu et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US 2026/0067787).
Regarding claim 4/1, Liu et al. teaches a first central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that to transmit the second indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first CU to: transmit, to the second CU, an integrated access and backhaul transport migration modification request message that comprises the second indication.
Zhu et al. teaches that, to transmit the second indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first CU (Fig, 14, “CU 1,” see, ¶[0244], “CU1 is a source F1-terminating CU”. See, Fig. 18, #1810; ¶[0289], “The communication apparatus 1800 includes a processor 1810…coupled to a storage 1820… configured to store a computer program or instructions and/or data. The processor 1810 is configured to execute the computer program or the instructions and/or the data stored in the storage 1820, to perform the methods in the foregoing method embodiments;” and ¶[0295], “the communication apparatus 1800 is configured to implement an operation performed by the donor node in the foregoing method embodiments.”) to:
transmit, to the second CU (Fig. 14, “CU 3,” see, [0244], “CU3 is a target F1-terminating CU”), an integrated access and backhaul transport migration modification request message that comprises the second indication (See, Fig. 14, S1410; ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” ¶[0248], “indication information sent by CU1 to CU3 directly carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element;” ¶[0008], “the CU of the LAB-DU can determine, based on the authorization information, whether to delete an F1 interface;” ¶[0249], “the indication information carries indication information for releasing an F1 connection or not establishing an F1 connection;” ¶[0167], “In subsequent steps and embodiments, unless otherwise specified, an indication manner of the IAB authorization information may be the same as that in this step;” and ¶[0170], “the message may be an IAB transport migration modification request.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the use of an IAB transport migration modification request message for conveying an indication, as such modification would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art as obvious to try variation of a F1AP message taught by Liu et al. (See, e.g., Liu et al., ¶[0153], “The F1AP message may be an F1AP message, for example, an F1 Removal Request message, or may be a newly defined F1AP message.”). See, also MPEP §2141.III(E).
Regarding claim 5/1, Liu et al. teaches a first central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that backhauling via the access node is suspended.
Zhu et al. teaches that the second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that backhauling via the access node is suspended (See, e.g., ¶[0010], “the first donor node determines, based on the IAB authorization information, whether the first IAB node is allowed to serve UE;” and ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” and ¶[0249], “only when authorization is not granted, the information carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element with a value of not authorized.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the forwarding of the IAB authorization information, in order to allow a proper decision relating to the F1 connection when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU (See, e.g., Zhu et al., ¶[0007], “the conventional technology, how the CU of the IAB-DU learns of current LAB authorization information when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU is not considered.”).
Regarding claim 7/1, Liu et al. teaches a first central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that the access node is serving zero user equipments [sic] (UEs).
Zhu et al., teach that the second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that the access node is serving zero user equipments [sic] (UEs) (See, e.g., ¶[0010], “the first donor node determines, based on the IAB authorization information, whether the first IAB node is allowed to serve UE;” and ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” ¶[0249], “only when authorization is not granted, the information carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element with a value of not authorized;” and ¶[0008], “so that the CU of the LAB-DU can determine, based on the authorization information, whether to delete an F1 interface”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the forwarding of the IAB authorization information, in order to allow a proper decision relating to the F1 connection when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU (See, e.g., Zhu et al., ¶[0007], “the conventional technology, how the CU of the IAB-DU learns of current LAB authorization information when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU is not considered.”).
Regarding claim 8/1, Liu et al. teaches a first central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first CU to: receive, from the second CU, a deauthorization status for backhaul operation of the access node, wherein transmission to the access node of the first indication associated with the suspension of the backhauling of the communications is in accordance with receiving the deauthorization status.
Zhu et al. teaches that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first CU (Fig. 11, “CU 1,” see, ¶[0197], “the IAB-DU still maintains the F1 interface with CU1”. See, Fig. 18, #1810; ¶[0289], “The communication apparatus 1800 includes a processor 1810…coupled to a storage 1820… configured to store a computer program or instructions and/or data. The processor 1810 is configured to execute the computer program or the instructions and/or the data stored in the storage 1820, to perform the methods in the foregoing method embodiments;” and ¶[0295], “the communication apparatus 1800 is configured to implement an operation performed by the donor node in the foregoing method embodiments.”) to: receive, from the second CU (Fig. 11, “CU 3,” see, ¶[0197], “inter-CU cell handover is performed for the IAB-MT, and an RRC connection to CU3 is established.”), a deauthorization status for backhaul operation of the access node, wherein transmission to the access node of the first indication associated with the suspension of the backhauling of the communications is in accordance with receiving the deauthorization status (See, Fig. 11, S1140; ¶[0204] “S1140: CU3 sends the IAB authorization information to CU1;” and ¶[0008], “so that the CU of the LAB-DU can determine, based on the authorization information, whether to delete an F1 interface”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the forwarding of the IAB authorization information, in order to allow a proper decision relating to the F1 connection when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU (See, e.g., Zhu et al., ¶[0007], “the conventional technology, how the CU of the IAB-DU learns of current LAB authorization information when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU is not considered.”).
Regarding claim 13/10, Liu et al. teaches a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that to receive the first indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to: receive, from the first CU, an integrated access and backhaul transport migration modification request message that comprises the first indication.
Zhu et al. teaches, to receive the first indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second CU (Fig, 14, “CU 3,” see, ¶[0244], “CU3 is a target F1-terminating CU,” see, Fig. 18, #1810; ¶[0289], “The communication apparatus 1800 includes a processor 1810…coupled to a storage 1820… configured to store a computer program or instructions and/or data. The processor 1810 is configured to execute the computer program or the instructions and/or the data stored in the storage 1820, to perform the methods in the foregoing method embodiments;” and ¶[0295], “the communication apparatus 1800 is configured to implement an operation performed by the donor node in the foregoing method embodiments.”) to: receive, from the first CU (Fig. 14, “CU 1,” see, [0244], “CU1 is a source F1-terminating CU”), an integrated access and backhaul transport migration modification request message that comprises the first indication (See, Fig. 14, S1410; ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” ¶[0248], “indication information sent by CU1 to CU3 directly carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element;” ¶[0008], “the CU of the LAB-DU can determine, based on the authorization information, whether to delete an F1 interface;” ¶[0249], “the indication information carries indication information for releasing an F1 connection or not establishing an F1 connection;” ¶[0167], “In subsequent steps and embodiments, unless otherwise specified, an indication manner of the IAB authorization information may be the same as that in this step;” and ¶[0170], “the message may be an IAB transport migration modification request.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the use of an IAB transport migration modification request message for conveying an indication, as such modification would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art as obvious to try variation of a F1AP message taught by Liu et al. (See, e.g., Liu et al., ¶[0153], “The F1AP message may be an F1AP message, for example, an F1 Removal Request message, or may be a newly defined F1AP message.”). See, also MPEP §2141.III(E).
Regarding claim 14/10, Liu et al. teaches a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that backhauling via the access node is suspended.
Zhu et al. teaches that the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that backhauling via the access node is suspended (See, e.g., ¶[0010], “the first donor node determines, based on the IAB authorization information, whether the first IAB node is allowed to serve UE;” and ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” and ¶[0249], “only when authorization is not granted, the information carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element with a value of not authorized.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the forwarding of the IAB authorization information, in order to allow a proper decision relating to the F1 connection when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU (See, e.g., Zhu et al., ¶[0007], “the conventional technology, how the CU of the IAB-DU learns of current LAB authorization information when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU is not considered.”).
Regarding claim 16/10, Liu et al. teaches a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that the access node is serving zero user equipments [sic] (UEs).
Zhu et al., teach explicitly that the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that the access node is serving zero user equipments [sic] (UEs) (See, e.g., ¶[0010], “the first donor node determines, based on the IAB authorization information, whether the first IAB node is allowed to serve UE;” and ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” ¶[0249], “only when authorization is not granted, the information carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element with a value of not authorized;” and ¶[0008], “so that the CU of the LAB-DU can determine, based on the authorization information, whether to delete an F1 interface”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the forwarding of the IAB authorization information, in order to allow a proper decision relating to the F1 connection when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU (See, e.g., Zhu et al., ¶[0007], “the conventional technology, how the CU of the IAB-DU learns of current LAB authorization information when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU is not considered.”).
Regarding claim 17/10, Liu et al. teaches a second central unit (CU) comprising all elements recited in claim 10 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to:
receive, from an authorization and mobility management function (AMF), a deauthorization status for backhaul operation of the access node; and
transmit, to the first CU, the deauthorization status for the backhaul operation of the access node, wherein reception of the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications is accordance with the deauthorization status.
Zhu et al. teaches that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second CU (Fig, 14, “CU 3,” see, ¶[0244], “CU3 is a target F1-terminating CU,” see, Fig. 18, #1810; ¶[0289], “The communication apparatus 1800 includes a processor 1810…coupled to a storage 1820… configured to store a computer program or instructions and/or data. The processor 1810 is configured to execute the computer program or the instructions and/or the data stored in the storage 1820, to perform the methods in the foregoing method embodiments;” and ¶[0295], “the communication apparatus 1800 is configured to implement an operation performed by the donor node in the foregoing method embodiments.”) to:
receive, from an authorization and mobility management function (AMF), a deauthorization status for backhaul operation of the access node (See, Fig. 11, S1120; ¶¶[0198]-[0199], “The AMF replies to CU3 with path switch request acknowledgment information that carries a current value of an IAB authorized information element and/or a current value of a mobile IAB authorized information element (namely, the IAB authorization information).”); and
transmit, to the first CU (Fig. 11, “CU 1,” see, ¶[0197], “there is an F1 interface between the IAB-DU and CU1.”), the deauthorization status for the backhaul operation of the access node (See, Fig. 11, S1140; and ¶[0204], “S1140: CU3 sends the IAB authorization information to CU1.”), wherein reception of the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications is accordance with the deauthorization status (See, Fig. 11, S1140; ¶[0204] “S1140: CU3 sends the IAB authorization information to CU1;” and ¶[0008], “so that the CU of the LAB-DU can determine, based on the authorization information, whether to delete an F1 interface”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the forwarding of the IAB authorization information, in order to allow a proper decision relating to the F1 connection when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU (See, e.g., Zhu et al., ¶[0007], “the conventional technology, how the CU of the IAB-DU learns of current LAB authorization information when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU is not considered.”).
Regarding claim 24/21, Liu et al. teaches a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 21 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that transmitting the second indication further comprises:
transmitting, to the second CU, an integrated access and backhaul transport migration modification request message that comprises the second indication.
Zhu et al. teaches that transmitting the second indication further comprises:
transmitting, to the second CU (Fig. 14, “CU 3,” see, [0244], “CU3 is a target F1-terminating CU”), an integrated access and backhaul transport migration modification request message that comprises the second indication (See, Fig. 14, S1410; ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” ¶[0248], “indication information sent by CU1 to CU3 directly carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element;” ¶[0008], “the CU of the LAB-DU can determine, based on the authorization information, whether to delete an F1 interface;” ¶[0249], “the indication information carries indication information for releasing an F1 connection or not establishing an F1 connection;” ¶[0167], “In subsequent steps and embodiments, unless otherwise specified, an indication manner of the IAB authorization information may be the same as that in this step;” and ¶[0170], “the message may be an IAB transport migration modification request.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the use of an IAB transport migration modification request message for conveying an indication, as such modification would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art as obvious to try variation of a F1AP message taught by Liu et al. (See, e.g., Liu et al., ¶[0153], “The F1AP message may be an F1AP message, for example, an F1 Removal Request message, or may be a newly defined F1AP message.”). See, also MPEP §2141.III(E).
Regarding claim 25/21, Liu et al. teaches a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 21 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that backhauling via the access node is suspended.
Zhu et al. teaches that the second indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that backhauling via the access node is suspended (See, e.g., ¶[0010], “the first donor node determines, based on the IAB authorization information, whether the first IAB node is allowed to serve UE;” and ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” and ¶[0249], “only when authorization is not granted, the information carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element with a value of not authorized.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the forwarding of the IAB authorization information, in order to allow a proper decision relating to the F1 connection when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU (See, e.g., Zhu et al., ¶[0007], “the conventional technology, how the CU of the IAB-DU learns of current LAB authorization information when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU is not considered.”).
Regarding claim 29/26, Liu et al. teaches a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 26 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the receiving the first indication further comprises: receiving, from the first CU, an integrated access and backhaul transport migration modification request message that comprises the first indication.
Zhu et al. teaches, to receive explicitly that the receiving the first indication further comprises:
receiving, from the first CU (Fig. 14, “CU 1,” see, [0244], “CU1 is a source F1-terminating CU”), an integrated access and backhaul transport migration modification request message that comprises the first indication (See, Fig. 14, S1410; ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” ¶[0248], “indication information sent by CU1 to CU3 directly carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element;” ¶[0008], “the CU of the LAB-DU can determine, based on the authorization information, whether to delete an F1 interface;” ¶[0249], “the indication information carries indication information for releasing an F1 connection or not establishing an F1 connection;” ¶[0167], “In subsequent steps and embodiments, unless otherwise specified, an indication manner of the IAB authorization information may be the same as that in this step;” and ¶[0170], “the message may be an IAB transport migration modification request.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the use of an IAB transport migration modification request message for conveying an indication, as such modification would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art as obvious to try variation of a F1AP message taught by Liu et al. (See, e.g., Liu et al., ¶[0153], “The F1AP message may be an F1AP message, for example, an F1 Removal Request message, or may be a newly defined F1AP message.”). See, also MPEP §2141.III(E).
Regarding claim 30/26, Liu et al. teaches a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 26 as discussed above.
Liu et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that backhauling via the access node is suspended.
Zhu et al. teaches that the first indication that indicates the suspension of the backhauling of the communications indicates that backhauling via the access node is suspended (See, e.g., ¶[0010], “the first donor node determines, based on the IAB authorization information, whether the first IAB node is allowed to serve UE;” and ¶[0247], “CU1 sends, to CU3, a message that carries authorization information of an IAB and/or authorization information of a mobile IAB;” and ¶[0249], “only when authorization is not granted, the information carries a (mobile) IAB authorized information element with a value of not authorized.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Liu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Zhu et al., i.e., the forwarding of the IAB authorization information, in order to allow a proper decision relating to the F1 connection when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU (See, e.g., Zhu et al., ¶[0007], “the conventional technology, how the CU of the IAB-DU learns of current LAB authorization information when the CU of the LAB-MT is different from the CU of the IAB-DU is not considered.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
3GPP TS 38.401 V17.6.0 (2023-09)8 teaches various aspects of inter-Cu handover procedures pertinent to the claimed invention of the present application (See, e.g., §8.17 IAB Inter-CU Topology Management, et seq.; P. 94, Figure 8.17.2.1-1 IAB inter-CU topology redundancy procedure; §8.17.3 IAB Inter-CU Topology Adaptation, et seq.; and P. 97, Figure 8.17.3.1-1: IAB inter-CU topology adaptation procedure)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KI S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/K.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 June 27, 2026
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 See Qualcomm Incorporated’s IPR Information Statement and IPR Licensing Declaration and IPR
Information Statement Annex, ISLD-202411-022, pp 1 & 3 (listing the Application as “US202418781606”), Retrieved from the Internet<URL: https://ipr.etsi.org/IPRDetails.aspx?IPRD_ID=8903&IPRD_TYPE_ID=2&MODE=2&sessionkey=55fd18> (Year: 2024). A copy of the ISLD-202411-022 is being provided herewith.
2 Under the principle of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the Applicant’s disclosure, the distinction between the limitations “first indication” and “second indication” recited in this and the other claims of the application is construed as a distinction between signaling directions, i.e., in terms of the identity of the sender and the receiver, rather than a content-wise distinction, i.e., what the indication actually indicates. See, e.g., Figs. 9-12, identifying the respective indications separately as a first and a second, but deferring the content-wise descriptions of the indications to elsewhere in the remaining portions of the disclosure. See, ¶¶[0169], [0170], [0174], [0175], [01178], [0179], [0181] and [0182]. Elsewhere in the disclosure, the content of the indication is described singularly without the first/second distinction. See, e.g., Fig. 4, #s 445-a and 445-b; and ¶¶[0111]-[0114].
3 Under the principle of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the Applicant’s disclosure, the limitation an “indication associated with suspension” recited in this and the other claims of the application is construed to include, inter alia, at least: i) an F1 release request (see, e.g., ¶[0110]); ii) an F1 connection release between the F1-terminating CU and the IAB DU (see, e.g., ¶[0112]); iii) a time at which to release backhaul resources associated with the IAB node (see, e.g., ¶[0044]); iv) an indication that allows the target CU to determine that the F1 connection is in the process of being released (see, e.g., ¶[0116]); and/or v) an indication for the access node to release backhaul resources, which may include a BAP address, a TNL address, BAP reconfiguration, or a combination thereof (see, e.g., ¶[0119]).
4 See footnote 2 above.
5 See footnote 3 above.
6 See footnote 2 above.
7 See footnote 3 above.
8 3GPP TS 38.401 V17.6.0 (2023-09), “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NG-RAN; Architecture description (Release 17),” published by 3GPP Organizational Partners, September 2023, Pp. 1-123 (line numbers added for convenience of citation).
Prosecution Insights