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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 09/04/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 1 and 11 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 11, the claim recites “. . indication from any of the base stations for being donor . .” which lacks clarity regarding role of the donor and what is real the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the published disclosure paragraph [0096], line 9, the phrase “. . continue to receive . .” is not clear as to what is being received from the base stations
In the published disclosure paragraph [0104], Figure number is missing for references 1702 and 1740
In the published disclosure paragraph [0108-110], Figure number is missing for references
In the published disclosure paragraph [0113-115], Figure number is missing for references
In the published disclosure paragraph [0117-119], Figure number is missing for references
In the published disclosure paragraph [0121-122], Figure number is missing for references
In the published disclosure paragraph [0125-129], Figure number is missing for references
In the published disclosure paragraph [0131-133], Figure number is missing for references
In the published disclosure paragraph [0135-136], Figure number is missing for references
In the published disclosure paragraph [0138-139], Figure number is missing for references
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4,7,10-11,14,17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by GUO et al. (US 2023/0319554 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Guo”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Guo discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (Guo Fig.12A-B Para[0321] An IAB node), and a UE (Guo Fig.12A-B Para[0321] A UE) to: establish a first connection with a first base station (Guo Fig.12A-B Para[0318-339] A first connection from the IAB node to first access network device (i.e. first base station)); establish a second connection with a second base station (Guo Fig.12A-B Para[0318-339] A second connection from the IAB node to second access network device (i.e. second base station)); and receive an indication, from the first base station or the second base station, that indicates at least one of the first base station or the second base station is to serve as an IAB donor for the IAB node (Guo Fig.12A-B Para[0318-339] An IP address notification message with IP address (i.e. indication) of IAB donor from the second access network device (i.e. second base station)).
Specifically for claims 1 and 11, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE that includes a processor (Guo Fig.29 Para[0615] A processor) and a memory (Guo Fig.29 Para[0615] A memory).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo further discloses receive, from the first base station or the second base station, an assertion for at least a subset of IAB donor functionality (Guo Fig.12A-B Para[0318-339] An IP address notification message with IP address (i.e. indication) of IAB donor from the second access network device (i.e. second base station)).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo further discloses wherein the indication indicates that the first base station is to serve as the IAB donor for the IAB node (Guo Fig.14 Para[0375] The first access network device is IAB donor).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo further discloses wherein the indication indicates that the second base station is to serve as the IAB donor for the IAB node (Guo Fig.12A-B Para[0318-339] An IP address notification message with IP address (i.e. indication) of IAB donor from the second access network device (i.e. second base station)).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo further discloses wherein the first base station and the second base station are capable of serving as an IAB donor for an IAB node (Guo Fig.10 Para[0228-231] Both the access network device can be IAB donors according to the donor configuration).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2,5,12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shah et al. (US 2023/0397084 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Shah”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first connection is based on at least one of a first radio resource control (RRC) connection or a first F1-control (F1-C) interface, and the second connection is based on at least one of a second RRC connection or a second F1-C interface.
However, Shah from the same field of invention discloses wherein the first connection is based on at least one of a first radio resource control (RRC) connection or a first F1-control (F1-C) interface (Shah Para[0243] The RRC connection from donor node CU1 to IAB node), and the second connection is based on at least one of a second RRC connection or a second F1-C interface (Shah Para[0243] The RRC connection from donor node CU1 to IAB node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Guo to have the feature of “wherein the first connection is based on at least one of a first radio resource control (RRC) connection or a first F1-control (F1-C) interface, and the second connection is based on at least one of a second RRC connection or a second F1-C interface” as taught by Shah. The motivation would have been to improving service by remediating link degradation (Shah Para[0090]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo does not explicitly disclose establish a backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel with the IAB donor, receive a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) configuration from the IAB donor, receive a cell resource configuration for a distributed unit (DU) from the IAB donor, receive an internet protocol (IP) configuration from the IAB donor, or terminate F1 connectivity with the IAB donor.
However, Shah from the same field of invention discloses establish a backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel with the IAB donor (Shah Para[0243] The RRC channel to IAB node from donor CU2), receive a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) configuration from the IAB donor (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), receive a cell resource configuration for a distributed unit (DU) from the IAB donor (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), receive an internet protocol (IP) configuration from the IAB donor (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or terminate F1 connectivity with the IAB donor (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Guo to have the feature of “establish a backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel with the IAB donor” as taught by Shah. The motivation would have been to improving service by remediating link degradation (Shah Para[0090]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Xu et al. (US 2023/0284246 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Xu”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first connection and the second connection provide dual connectivity (DC) for the IAB node, the DC associated with at least one of new radio-DC (NR-DC), multi-radio-DC (MR-DC), a dual active protocol stack (DAPS), or multi-mobile terminated (multi-MT) connectivity.
However, Xu from the same field of invention discloses wherein the first connection and the second connection provide dual connectivity (DC) for the IAB node (Xu Fig.2 Para[0057] Two connection to donor DUs), the DC associated with at least one of new radio-DC (NR-DC) (Xu Fig.2 Para[0041] The invention relates to NR protocols (i.e. NR-DC)), multi-radio-DC (MR-DC) (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or multi-mobile terminated (multi-MT) connectivity (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Guo to have the feature of “wherein the first connection and the second connection provide dual connectivity (DC) for the IAB node, the DC associated with at least one of new radio-DC (NR-DC)” as taught by Xu. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support inter-donor topology redundancy (Xu Para[0003]).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of ZTE (R3-206559, hereinafter referred to as “ZTE”)-IDS.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication indicates that the first base station and the second base station are to serve as IAB donors for the IAB node.
However, ZTE from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication indicates that the first base station and the second base station are to serve as IAB donors for the IAB node (ZTE Section:2.2 Pages:8-9 multiple IAB donors in a dual connectivity ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Guo to have the feature of “wherein the indication indicates that the first base station and the second base station are to serve as IAB donors for the IAB node” as taught by ZTE. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support simultaneous connection to donor nodes (ZTE Section:2.2).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Guo discloses the IAB node and UE as explained above for Claim 1. Guo does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication indicates that the second base station is to provide a subset of IAB donor functionality for the IAB node.
However, ZTE from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication indicates that the second base station is to provide a subset of IAB donor functionality for the IAB node (ZTE Section:2.2 Page:9 Step:12 For load balancing purpose, a subset of UE bearers are assigned between two donor nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Guo to have the feature of “wherein the indication indicates that the second base station is to provide a subset of IAB donor functionality for the IAB node” as taught by ZTE. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support simultaneous connection to donor nodes (ZTE Section:2.2).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0015176 to Ishii (Fig.8,16 and associated paragraphs)
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/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; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). 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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights