DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of [0021], “centralized unite” should be changed to “centralized unit”.
In line 4 of [0031], “the UE transceiver 210” should be changed to “the UE transceiver 230”.
In line 3 of [0046] “the historical information of the UE 102” should be changed to “the historical information of the UE 104”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18/793,113 (herein called “the ’113 Application”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1 of the present application, claim 1 (as filed 7/24/2026) of the ’113 Application discloses a method, comprising: sending, by a first network node to a second network node, information associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) related migration (see claim 1 of the claims as filed 7/24/2026, which disclose sending “sending, by a first network node to a second network node, a first message, comprising information to manage migration of traffic between a first topology managed by the first network node and a second topology managed by the second network node” along with other limitations).
Thus, claim 1 (as filed 7/24/2026) of the ’113 Application contains every element and thus anticipates claim 1 of the present application. Claim 1 of the present application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting. A later claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Stated another way, claim 1 of the present application is a broader version of claim 1 (as filed 7/24/2026) of the ’113 Application in that it omits one or more elements of claim 1 (as filed 7/24/2026) of the ’113 Application. Omission of an element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Similarly, claim 6 of the present application is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting in view of claim 14 (as filed 7/24/2026) of the ’113 Application.
Similarly, claim 11 of the present application is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting in view of claim 16 (as filed 7/24/2026) of the ’113 Application.
Similarly, claim 16 of the present application is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting in view of claim 15 (as filed 7/24/2026) of the ’113 Application.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/833,222 (herein called “the ’222 Application”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1 of the present application, claims 1 and 19 (as filed 7/25/2024) of the ’222 Application discloses a method, comprising: sending, by a first network node to a second network node, information associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) related migration (see claim 19 of the claims as filed 7/25/2024, which disclose sending “assistance information” which is “associated with a migration of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) entity”; see also claim 1 of the claims as filed 7/25/2024, which discloses receiving “assistance information” which is “associated with a migration of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) entity”).
Thus, although the claims are not identical, claim 19 (as filed 7/25/2024) of the ’222 Application contains every element and thus anticipates claim 1 of the present application. Claim 1 of the present application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting. A later claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Stated another way, it would have been obvious to modify claim 19 (as filed 7/25/2024) of the ’222 Application (by removing the modifier “assistance”, for example) to obtain claim 1 of the present application. It would have similarly been obvious to send the signal received in claim 1 of the ’222 Application (as filed 7/25/2024) and thus to obtain claim 1 of the present application.
Similarly, claim 6 of the present application is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting in view of claim 1 (as filed 7/25/2024) of the ’222 Application.
Similarly, claim 11 of the present application is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting in view of claim 1 (as filed 7/25/2024) of the ’222 Application.
Similarly, claim 16 of the present application is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting in view of claim 1 (as filed 7/25/2024) of the ’222 Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 2025/0106700).
Regarding claim 1: Wang discloses a method, comprising:
sending, by a first network node to a second network node, information associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) related migration (disclosed throughout; step 1 of Figure 7, for example, in which a first network node transmits a first message to a second network node; this message is “associated with” IAB migration as disclosed throughout; see [0123]-[0125], for example, which indicates that the invention (described at a high level in Figure 7) “relates to two migration methods of the relay node”; the relay node is an IAB node).
Regarding claim 6: Wang discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a second network node from a first network node, information associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) related migration (disclosed throughout; step 1 of Figure 7, for example, in which a first network node transmits a first message to a second network node; this message is “associated with” IAB migration as disclosed throughout; see [0123]-[0125], for example, which indicates that the invention (described at a high level in Figure 7) “relates to two migration methods of the relay node”; the relay node is an IAB node).
Regarding claim 11: Wang discloses a first network node, comprising:
at least one processor configured to (see processor 1502 of Figure 15, for example):
send, via a transmitter to a second network node, information associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) related migration (disclosed throughout; step 1 of Figure 7, for example, in which a first network node transmits a first message to a second network node; this message is “associated with” IAB migration as disclosed throughout; see [0123]-[0125], for example, which indicates that the invention (described at a high level in Figure 7) “relates to two migration methods of the relay node”; the relay node is an IAB node).
Regarding claim 16: Wang discloses a second network node, comprising:
at least one processor configured to (see processor 1502 of Figure 15, for example):
receive, via a receiver from a first network node, information associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) related migration (disclosed throughout; step 1 of Figure 7, for example, in which a first network node transmits a first message to a second network node; this message is “associated with” IAB migration as disclosed throughout; see [0123]-[0125], for example, which indicates that the invention (described at a high level in Figure 7) “relates to two migration methods of the relay node”; the relay node is an IAB node).
Regarding claims 2, 7, 12, and 17: Wang discloses the limitations of sending, by the first network node comprising a first IAB donor, to the second network node comprising a second IAB donor, the information; or sending, by the first network node comprising an IAB node, to the second network node comprising the second IAB donor, the information (disclosed throughout; see [0126], for example, which indicates that “the first network node and the second network node…may be respectively the second node and the third node, or the third node and the fourth node, or the second node and the fourth node, or the first node and the second node, and so on…”; further, as indicated in [0076]-[0080], the first node may be “a relay node including two parts…an MT part and a DU part” and the second, third, and fourth nodes may be “a donor node of the first node, or a node with a donor function”; thus, the first network node can be either a first IAB donor (such as the third node) or an IAB node (such as the first node) and the second network node can be an IAB donor (such as the second node)).
Regarding claims 3, 8, 13, and 18: Wang discloses the limitations that the information comprises at least one of: an identity of the IAB node, an identity of a target donor, an identity of a target cell, an indication of IAB mobile termination (IAB-MT) migration, an indication of IAB distributed unit (IAB-DU) migration, or an indication of user equipment (UE) migration (described throughout; as indicated in [0130] and [0132], the information includes at least identification information of a target cell and indication information of a target node).
Regarding claims 4, 9, 14, and 14: Wang discloses the limitations of sending, by the first network node comprising an IAB node, to the second network node comprising a second IAB donor, the information; or sending, by the first network node comprising a first IAB donor, to the second network node comprising the second IAB donor, the information; or sending, by the first network node comprising a target donor, to the second network node comprising a source donor, the information; wherein the source donor sends the information to an initial donor (disclosed throughout; see [0126], for example, which indicates that “the first network node and the second network node…may be respectively the second node and the third node, or the third node and the fourth node, or the second node and the fourth node, or the first node and the second node, and so on…”; further, as indicated in [0076]-[0080], the first node may be “a relay node including two parts…an MT part and a DU part” and the second, third, and fourth nodes may be “a donor node of the first node, or a node with a donor function”; thus, the first network node can be either a first IAB donor (such as the third node) or an IAB node (such as the first node) and the second network node can be an IAB donor (such as the second node)).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 15, and 20: Wang discloses the limitations that the information comprises an old or source cell identifier (ID) of a distributed unit (DU) of the IAB node, and a new or target cell ID of the DU (disclosed throughout; for example, consider step 1-b-1 of Figure 8(b), which as indicated in [0197]-[0211], includes at least old or source cell ID (such as the information on a served cell in [0204]), and a new or target cell ID (such as the information of cells contained in the service area of the node in [0203], which are new cells that can be selected by the third node in response to this message)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhuo et al (US 2026/0136246) discloses a method and system for determining whether to handover a DU of an IAB node when the MT of that IAB node has already been handed over.
Belleschi et al (US 2024/0414610) discloses a method for handling IAB migration.
Lu (US 2024/0357456) discloses a method for IAB path migration.
Akl et al (US 2022/0369183) discloses a method for inter-donor topology discovery in an IAB network.
Akl et al (US 2022/0141894) discloses a method for triggering migration to enable inter-donor topology adaptation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 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 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights