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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 02/25/2026 havingclaims 1-16 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 07/26/2024 is CON of PCT/JP2023/003632 02/03/2023
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS JAPAN 2022-018846 02/09/2022 are acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 07/26/2024 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 07/26/2024, 07/25/2025 is accepted by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP §2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,
“means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-14 recites a various units "such as obtaining unit, selection unit, path control unit" in claim 1, the examiner is invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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 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.
2. 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 section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication US 20210258244 A1 Xu et al. (Hereinafter “Xu").
As per claim 1, Xu teaches a control apparatus of an IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul) network, comprising: obtaining unit configured to obtain a plurality of types of dynamic information indicating a communication status of at least one IAB node for relaying connection between an IAB donor and a predetermined IAB node in the IAB network, the at least one IAB node being connectable to the predetermined IAB node (para 0046-0048], obtaining plurality information such as Qos, slice between an IAB donor and a predetermined IAB node in the IAB network, the at least one IAB node being connectable to the predetermined IAB node as donor node 210 and various IABs in the topology ); selection unit configured to select at least one type of the dynamic information, out of the plurality of types of the dynamic information obtained by the obtaining unit, based on a slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node(para 0046-0048], selecting based on the plurality of information received from the topology based such as select at least one type of the dynamic information on a slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node); and path control unit configured to control a communication path between ..the predetermined IAB node and the IAB donor in accordance with the at least one type of the dynamic information selected by the selection unit (para 0046-0048], controlling the flow from the donor CU and determined IAB based on the received information from multiple IAB in the topology network and accordance with the at least one type of the dynamic information selected by the selection unit).
As per claim 8, Xu teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one connectable IAB node is at least one IAB node supporting the slice type ((para 0046-0048], the topology supports slice type for connection between donor and IAB).
As per claim 9, Xu teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising first receiving unit configured to receive a slice request signal making a request for a communication path supporting a slice type from a user equipment connected to the predetermined IAB node, wherein if the first receiving unit receives the slice request signal, the path control unit specifies an IAB node to which the predetermined IAB node is to be connected (para 0074], based on the received information making a request for a communication path supporting a slice type from a user equipment connected to the predetermined IAB node and based on the received slice request connects to the particular IAB).
As per claim 13, Xu teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the selection unit selects more than one type of the dynamic information, out of the plurality of types of the dynamic information, based on the slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node, and the path control unit controls the communication path based on the more than one type of the dynamic information selected by the selection unit ((para 0046-0048], selects more than one type of the dynamic information, out of the plurality of types of the dynamic information, based on the slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node, and the path control unit controls the communication path based on the more than one type of the dynamic information).
As per claim 15, Xu teaches the control method to be executed by a control apparatus of an IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul), comprising: obtaining a plurality of types of dynamic information indicating a communication status of at least one IAB node for relaying connection between an IAB donor and a predetermined IAB node in the IAB network, the at least one IAB node being connectable to the predetermined IAB node(para 0046-0048], obtaining plurality information such as Qos, slice between an IAB donor and a predetermined IAB node in the IAB network, the at least one IAB node being connectable to the predetermined IAB node as donor node 210 and various IABs in the topology );; selecting at least one type of the dynamic information, out of the plurality of types of the dynamic information obtained, based on a slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node(para 0046-0048], selecting based on the plurality of information received from the topology based such as select at least one type of the dynamic information on a slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node);; and controlling a communication path between the predetermined IAB node and the IAB donor in accordance with the at least one type of the dynamic information selected(para 0046-0048], selecting based on the plurality of information received from the topology based such as select at least one type of the dynamic information on a slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node).
As per claim 16, Xu teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a control apparatus of an IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul) network to execute steps of: obtaining a plurality of types of dynamic information indicating a communication status of at least one IAB node for relaying connection between an IAB donor and a predetermined IAB node in the IAB network, the at least one IAB node being connectable to the predetermined IAB node(para 0046-0048], obtaining plurality information such as Qos, slice between an IAB donor and a predetermined IAB node in the IAB network, the at least one IAB node being connectable to the predetermined IAB node as donor node 210 and various IABs in the topology );; selecting at least one type of the dynamic information, out of the plurality of types of the dynamic information obtained, based on a slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node(para 0046-0048], selecting based on the plurality of information received from the topology based such as select at least one type of the dynamic information on a slice type to be supported by the predetermined IAB node);; and controlling a communication path between the predetermined IAB node and the IAB donor in accordance with the at least one type of the dynamic information selected(para 0046-0048], controlling the flow from the donor CU and determined IAB based on the received information from multiple IAB in the topology network and accordance with the at least one type of the dynamic information selected by the selection unit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2.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.
3. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu further view of US PG Pub US 20210314856 A1 to HUANG et al (hereinafter HUANG).
As per claim 10, Xu teaches the control apparatus according to claim 9, HUANG teaches further comprising notification unit configured to notify the user equipment that has transmitted the slice request signal that the slice type is not supportable if the first receiving unit receives the slice request signal and the path control unit determines that no communication path supports the slice type requested by the slice request signal (para 0052], exchange information between donor and IAB and the IAB donor and the AMF exchange S-NSSAI or Slice/Service types supported by the IAB donor and the AMF or whether to support IAB.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of Xu by configured to notify the user equipment that has transmitted the slice request signal that the slice type is not supportable if the first receiving unit receives the slice request signal and the path control unit determines that no communication path supports the slice type requested by the slice request signal as suggested by HUANG, this modification would benefit Xu for enabling guaranteed successful transmission of the data packet in an IAB architecture.
As per claim 11, Xu teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, HUANG teaches further comprising second receiving unit configured to receive, from the predetermined IAB node, an RRC (Radio Resource Control) signal including: a request to re-establish a communication path ((para 0051], a request to re-establish a communication). ; notification of a radio link failure (para 0051], ).; and flow control feedback, wherein if the second receiving unit receives the RRC signal, the obtaining unit obtains the dynamic information, and the path control unit controls the communication path between the IAB donor and the predetermined IAB node so as to support the slice type that is supportable by the predetermined IAB node (para 0052], if the second receiving unit receives the RRC signal, the obtaining unit obtains the dynamic information, and the path control unit controls the communication path between the IAB donor and the predetermined IAB node so as to support the slice type that is supportable by the predetermined IAB node ).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15-16 2-7, 12, 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20220330196 A1; US Patent Publication US 20230209390 A1, US Patent Publication US 20230180090 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights