DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visa et al(WO 2024/208856 A2) in view of Zhu et al(US 2025/0287277 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Visa ‘856 teaches, a second central unit (CU)( page 34 second paragraph, and Fig. 8, target F1 donor-CU(second CU) ), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; 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 to( page 16 paragraphs 3-4 and Fig. 4, a communication device architecture applicable to donor CU that includes CPU and Memory of storing instructions):
receive a first indication of an identifier of a first CU that is connected to an access node via a backhaul user equipment (UE) interface connection (page 37 paragraph 4, page 38 paragraph 1 and Fig. 8, the target F1 donor-CU receives an F1 setup request message (first indication) from the migrating IAB-node (access node). The setup request includes identification information such as Global NG-RAN Node ID, of the source F1 door-CU(first CU) managing the mobile terminal (MT/UE) connection); and
transmit a second indication to the access node to suspend a backhaul network entity interface connection between the access node and the second CU(page 38 paragraph 2, Figs. 8, 10, the target F1 donor-CU transmits an F1 Setup Response(second indication ) to the IAB-node to reject the F1 connection (backhaul network entity interface connection)).
Visa ‘856 does not explicitly teach, wherein the second indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection is based at least in part on an inter-CU backhaul connection being unavailable between the second CU and the first CU.
Zhu ‘277 teaches, wherein the second indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection is based at least in part on an inter-CU backhaul connection being unavailable between the second CU and the first CU([0013],[0075]-[0076], [0214] and Fig. 12, the firs CU determines to perform migration of the DU, triggering the second message, if it determines that it cannot setup an Xn interface(inter-CU backhaul connection) with the third CU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Zhu ‘277, since such modification would enable a wireless communication system to perform DU migration in the continuous partial migration, as suggested by Zhu ‘277([0005], [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches, wherein, to receive the first indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to: receive the first indication from the access node( page 37 first paragraph, page 48, paragraph 3 and Fig. 8, target F1 donor-CU (second CU) receives F1 setup request message (first indication) comprising the identifier of the source CU from the migrating IAB-node(access node)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches, wherein, to receive the first indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to: receive the first indication from a CU that terminates the backhaul UE interface connection for the access node( page 38 paragraph 2, page 39, paragraph 3 and Fig. 8, target F1 donor-CU (second CU) receives a DU migration notification message or configuration update message(first indication) from the IAB-donor-CU that serves the MT and acts as the RRC-terminating CU for the IAB-node).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches, wherein the backhaul UE interface connection is a radio resource control (RRC) connection( page 15 paragraph 6, page 18, paragraph 2 and Fig. 2b, the communication connection controlling the MT unit of the IAB node (backhaul UE interface connection) as a TTC connection).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhu ‘277 further teaches, wherein, to receive the first indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to: receive the first indication prior to an establishment of the backhaul UE interface connection, wherein the first indication is associated with establishment of the backhaul UE interface connection to the first CU([0205], [0211] and Fig. 12, the first message can indicate that the MT is to be handed over to the topology under the third CU, which may occur before the handover is actually completed, which suggests receiving the indication associated with the MT’s new connection prior to the actual establishment of that interface connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Zhu ‘277, since such modification would enable a wireless communication system to perform DU migration in the continuous partial migration, as suggested by Zhu ‘277([0005], [0006]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhu ‘277 further teaches,, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to: determine that the inter-CU backhaul connection is unavailable based at least in part on a determination that inter-CU backhaul connectivity cannot be established([0214] and Fig. 12, the CU determines if the Xn interface can be ser up by attempting to initiate an Xn interface setup request to the third CU. If the CU does not receive a response indicating that setup is allowed it determines that setup of the Xn interface with the third CY is not allowed, thereby teaching determination of unavailability base on the inability to establish connectivity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Zhu ‘277, since such modification would enable a wireless communication system to perform DU migration in the continuous partial migration, as suggested by Zhu ‘277([0005], [0006]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhu ‘277 further teaches, wherein the first indication comprises a request to perform suspension of the backhaul network entity interface connection between the access node and the second CU indicated by the second indication([0211], [0212. [0216-0219] and Fig. 12, the DU migration query triggers the migration determination, and the resulting DU migration command directs the access node to establish the replacement F1 connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Zhu ‘277, since such modification would enable a wireless communication system to perform DU migration in the continuous partial migration, as suggested by Zhu ‘277([0005], [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches,, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to: suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node by performing a release of the backhaul network entity interface connection(page 33 paragraph 1, page 62 paragraphs 3-4, Fig 12C, the target F1 donor-CU can revoke a previously accepted DU migration by sending an F1 removal request message to the IAB-node to remove or deactivate the logical DU , performing ta release of the connection).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches, wherein the backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node is an F1 connection(( page 18 paragraph 2, page 22, paragraph 1 and Fig. 8, the connection between the target IAB donor -CU(second CU) and the DU of the IAB node (access node) is defined as an FI interface connection).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhu ‘277 further teaches, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to: suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node by triggering an establishment of a second backhaul network entity interface connection between the access node and a different CU than the second CU([0217], [0219] and Fig. 12, when determining the to perform DU migration the CU sends a second message commanding the IAB node to generate a new logical DU and set up a new F1 interface with the third CU. This active migration command inherently suspends the previous network entity interface by triggering the establishment of a second F1 interface connection with a different CU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Zhu ‘277, since such modification would enable a wireless communication system to perform DU migration in the continuous partial migration, as suggested by Zhu ‘277([0005], [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhu ‘277 further teaches, wherein the second indication indicates a cause value associated with unavailability of the inter-CU backhaul connection between the second CU and the first CU([0013],[0075]-[0076], [0214] and Fig. 12, the firs CU determines to perform migration of the DU, triggering the second message, if it determines that it cannot setup an Xn interface(inter-CU backhaul connection) with the third CU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Zhu ‘277, since such modification would enable a wireless communication system to perform DU migration in the continuous partial migration, as suggested by Zhu ‘277([0005], [0006]).
Regarding claim 13, Visa ‘856 teaches, an access node(page 15 paragraph 3, page 16 paragraph 2 and Fig. 4, IAB node(access node)), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the access node to (page 15 paragraph 3, page 16 paragraph 2 and Fig. 4, an IAB node (access node) implemented a a communication device containing CPU and memory storing executable code): establish a backhaul UE interface connection with a first central unit (CU) (page 15 paragraph 1, page 20 paragraph 4 and Fig. 2b, the MT part of the IAB node establishes signaling radio bearers for an RRC connection (backhaul UE interface connection) with an IAB-donor_CU);
transmit an identifier of the first CU to a second CU associated with a backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node (page 37 paragraph 1, page 55 paragraph 2 and Fig. 8, the IAB node transmits an F1 setup request message to the target F1 donor-Cu(second CU) to request the setup of an F1 connection (backhaul network entity interface connection). The setup request message includes the identifier (e.g. global NG RAN node ID) of the non-F1 donor-CU (first CU) that serves the MT) ; and
receive, in response to transmitting the identifier of the first CU, an indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node (page 38 paragraph 1, page 55 paragraph 3 and Fig. 8, in response to the F1 setup request, the target F1 donor CU determines whether to accept or reject the migration. If the target CU rejects the F1 setup request (sending an indication of rejection of an F1 Setup failure) which revokes or preventing (suspending) the backhaul network entity interface connection).
Visa ‘856 does not explicitly teach, an indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node.
Zhu ‘277 teaches, an indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node([0185], [0217], [0284] and Figs. 12, 16, the IAB node receiving second message from the CU, commanding the IAB node to perform DU migration by setting up an F1 interface with the new CU. This migration command causes the original logical DU and its F1 connection to be replaced “turned off”(suspending) the original backhaul network entity interface connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Zhu ‘277, since such modification would enable a wireless communication system to perform DU migration in the continuous partial migration, as suggested by Zhu ‘277([0005], [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches, wherein the backhaul UE interface connection is a radio resource control (RRC) connection and the backhaul network entity interface connection is an F1 connection( page 15 paragraph 6, page 18, paragraph 2 and Fig. 2b, the communication connection controlling the MT unit of the IAB node (backhaul UE interface connection) as a TTC connection).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches, wherein the identifier is transmitted in association with a request to establish the backhaul network entity interface connection(page 37 paragraph 1, page 55 paragraph 2 and Fig. 8, the IAB node transmits an F1 setup request message to the target F1 donor-Cu(second CU) to request the setup of an F1 connection (backhaul network entity interface connection). The setup request message includes the identifier (e.g. global NG RAN node ID) of the non-F1 donor-CU (first CU) that serves the MT).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhu ‘277 further teaches, wherein the indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection comprises a trigger to establish a second backhaul network entity interface connection between the access node and a different CU than the second CU([0217], [0219] and Fig. 12, when determining the to perform DU migration the CU sends a second message commanding the IAB node to generate a new logical DU and set up a new F1 interface with the third CU. This active migration command inherently suspends the previous network entity interface by triggering the establishment of a second F1 interface connection with a different CU).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhu ‘277 further teaches, wherein the indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection comprises a cause value indicating unavailability of an inter-CU backhaul connection between the first CU and the second CU([0013],[0075]-[0076], [0214] and Fig. 12, the firs CU determines to perform migration of the DU, triggering the second message, if it determines that it cannot setup an Xn interface(inter-CU backhaul connection) with the third CU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Zhu ‘277, since such modification would enable a wireless communication system to perform DU migration in the continuous partial migration, as suggested by Zhu ‘277([0005], [0006]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the access node to: transmit, to a third CU, a message indicating suspension of the backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node(page 38 paragraph 3, page 56 paragraph 3 and Fig. 8, after receiving an F1 setup response indicating rejection from the target F1 donor-CU(the second CU), the IAB node transmits a DU activation response message to the source F1 donor-CU(the third CU). This response message indicates to the source CU that the target CU rejected the request for establishing F1 connection, thereby reporting the suspension of rejection of the backhaul network entity interface connection).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Centonza et al(WO 2019/138359 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations, Visa ‘856 further teaches, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second CU to: suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection between the second CU and the access node by rejecting a connection setup procedure initiated by the access node to the second CU page 38 paragraph 2, Figs. 8, 10, the target F1 donor-CU transmits an F1 Setup Response(second indication ) to the IAB-node to reject the F1 connection (backhaul network entity interface connection)).
The combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 does not explicitly teach, transmit a rejection message indicating a redirection of the connection setup procedure to a different CU.
Centonza ‘359 teaches, transmit a rejection message indicating a redirection of the connection setup procedure to a different CU(page 9, 33 and Figs. 4, 11, based on the rejection notification indicating that the original CU is overloaded, the DU uses a different SCTP association to send the initial message to a different, less loaded gNB-CU instance. Centonza ‘359 also states that the DU may set up the connection with a different control unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Centonza ‘359, since such modification would allow the gNB-DU to efficiently allocate its resources based on the rejection of the wireless device as indicated by the gNB- CU, as suggested by Centonza ‘359(page 5 lines 11-20).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Visa ‘856 and Zhu ‘277 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection comprises a rejection message indicating a redirection of a connection setup procedure to a different CU than the second CU.
Centonza ‘359 teaches, wherein the indication to suspend the backhaul network entity interface connection comprises a rejection message indicating a redirection of a connection setup procedure to a different CU than the second CU (page 9, 33 and Figs. 4, 11, based on the rejection notification indicating that the original CU is overloaded, the DU uses a different SCTP association to send the initial message to a different, less loaded gNB-CU instance. Centonza ‘359 also states that the DU may set up the connection with a different control unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Visa ‘856, by incorporating the teaching of Centonza ‘359, since such modification would allow the gNB-DU to efficiently allocate its resources based on the rejection of the wireless device as indicated by the gNB- CU, as suggested by Centonza ‘359(page 5 lines 11-20).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, which can be found: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; or (3) EFS WEB. Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights