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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on September 30th, 2024 and September 15th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
This office action is responsive to application filed on September 30th, 2024. In this office action:
Claims 1-18, 32, and 34 are pending.
Claims 1-18, 32, and 34 are rejected.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on September 30th, 2024 and December 11th, 2024 have been considered and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because they recite acronyms that are not defined within the claim. The acronyms are: gNB.
Claim 7 is objected to because they recite acronyms that are not defined within the claim. The acronyms are: PDU.
Claim 13 is objected to because they recite acronyms that are not defined within the claim. The acronyms are: DL.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality:
“… sending, by the first network node, quality-of-service (QoS) flow level QoS parameters of the backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) channel …” should read (Examiner’s suggestion) “… sending, by the first network node, quality-of-service (QoS) flow level QoS parameters of a backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) channel”
Claim 17 is objected to because they recite acronyms that are not defined within the claim. The acronyms are: GPRS.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “receiving, by the first network node from the third network node, an indication of whether the second network node is authorized to provide of support the at least one UP function.” It’s unclear what “the second network node is authorized to provide of support” means. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and the bounds of the claim language.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the limitation as “receiving, by the first network node from the third network node, an indication of whether the second network node is authorized to
Claim 6 recites the term “the fourth network node” in “exchanging, by the third network node with the fourth network node before, after or during the integration of the second network node, ...” The term “the fourth network node” has never been introduced in the instant claim or in base claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation as “exchanging, by the third network node with a fourth network node before, after or during the integration of the second network node, ...”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-18, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 32, and 34 recite in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite in part:
Claims 1 and 34 recite sending, by a first network node to a second network node, configuration information, wherein the configuration information is associated with a node capable of providing at least one user plane (UP) function {data gathering}. The “sending” configuration information … is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data by the second network node. The claim does not provide any details on how the data is sent or any details on the gathered data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “sending” configuration information encompasses gathering data by the second network node.
Claim 32 recites receiving, by a second network node from a first network node, configuration information, wherein the configuration information is associated with a node capable of providing at least one user plane (UP) function {data gathering}. The “receiving” configuration information … is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data by the second network node. The claim does not provide any details on how the data is received or any details on the gathered data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “receiving” configuration information encompasses gathering data by the second network node.
Therefore, claims 1, 32, and 34 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element - when executed by at least one processor to send configuration information. The at least one processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor to send configuration information), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 32, and 34 are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 32, and 34 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the at least one processor to send configuration information to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 32, and 34 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “wherein: the at least one UP function includes a gNB centralized unit UP (gNB-CU-UP) function.” The claim further limiting the definition of the at least one UP function, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “wherein the second network node includes at least one of: the node, a mobile termination (MT) function of the node, a distributed unit (DU) function of the node, or a UP function of the node.” The claim further limiting the definition of the second network node, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “receiving, by the first network node from the second network node, first information comprising at least one of: an indication of the second network node which is a mobile node, an indication or a capability of the second network node to provide the at least one UP function, or a number of UP function modules localized in the second network node {data gathering}.” The “receiving” information … is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. The claim does not provide any details on how the data is received or any details on the gathered data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “receiving” information encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “wherein a parent node of the second network node broadcasts information on the first network node’s capability of supporting communication with the node capable of providing the at least one UP function, or information on allowing access of the node capable of providing the at least one UP function {data gathering}.” The broadcasts” information … is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data by the node. The claim does not provide any details on how the data is broadcasted or any details on the gathered data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “broadcasts” information encompasses gathering data by the node, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “at least one of: sending, by the first network node to the second network node, the first network node’s capability of supporting communication with the node capable of providing the at least one UP function, or info on allowing access of the node capable of providing the at least one UP function; sending, by the first network node to a third network node, the second network node’s capabilities which include whether the at least one UP function is supported; receiving, by the first network node from the third network node, an indication of whether the second network node is authorized to provide of support the at least one UP function; exchanging, by the first network node with the third network node before, after or during integration of the second network node, capabilities that include whether the first or third network node can serve the node capable of providing the at least one UP function; or exchanging, by the third network node with the fourth network node before, after or during the integration of the second network node, capabilities that include whether the third or fourth network node can serve the node capable of providing the at least one UP function {data gathering}.” The “sending” and “exchanging” … are reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. The claim does not provide any details on how the data is sent/exchanged or any details on the gathered data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “sending” and “exchanging” information encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “receiving, by the first network node from the second network node, a request for at least one IP address, wherein the request is for each of a plurality of usages comprising at least one of: all traffic, F1 user plane interface (F1-U) traffic, F1 control plane interface (F1-C) traffic, non-F1 traffic, non-E1 traffic, E1 traffic, or user plane traffic via an NG-U interface; and sending, by the first network node to the second network node, at least one of: one or more IPv6 addresses or one 64-bit IPv6 prefix for each of the usages, or one or more IPv4 addresses for each of the usages {data gathering}.” The “receiving” a request for [information] and “sending” are reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “receiving” a request for [information] and “sending” [data] encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “receiving, by the first network node from the second network node, at least one of: a number of IP addresses requested, or a number of IP addresses used for each of a plurality of usages {data gathering}.” The “receiving” [information] is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “receiving” encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “receiving, by the first network node, a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) address via a message from a UP function of the second network node; sending, by the first network node to the second network node, an IP address of the first network node; or sending, by the first network node to the second network node, a backhaul (BH) configuration for traffic between the first network node and the UP function of the second network node {data gathering}.” The “receiving” and “sending” [information] is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “receiving” and “sending” encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “receiving, by the first network node from the second network node, a first message comprising at least one of: an F1 user plane interface (F1-U) uplink (UL) tunnel endpoint identifier (TEID) or a transport layer address {data gathering}.” The “receiving” [information] is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “receiving” encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 12, and it further recites “sending, by the first network node to the UP function of the second network node, a second message comprising at least one of: a F1-U DL TEID or a transport layer address {data gathering}.” The “sending” [information] is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “sending” encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “sending, by the first network node, quality-of-service (QoS) flow level QoS parameters of the backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) channel {data gathering}.” The “sending” [information] is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “sending” encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, and it further recites “wherein a protocol data unit (PDU) session and a BH RLC channel has a one-to-one mapping or a many-to-one mapping.” The claim further limiting the definition of the protocol data unit (PDU) session and the BH RLC channel, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “sending, by the first network node to the second network node, uplink backhaul (BH) information, wherein the uplink BH information includes at least one of a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) routing identifier (ID), a next-hop BAP address, or an ID of an egress BH RLC channel {data gathering}.” The “sending” [information] is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “sending” encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “sending, by the first network node to a third network node, a message with information comprising at least one of: a mapping between an IP security (IPsec) transport layer address and a list of an uplink or downlink GPRS tunneling protocol (GTP) transport layer address, or at least one of an IP address, a differentiated services code point (DSCP) or a flow label configuration, on each protocol data unit (PDU) session or GTP tunnel between an UP function of the second network node and a core network {data gathering}.” The “sending” [information] is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “sending” encompasses gathering data, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 17 is not patent eligible
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 18 depends on claim 17, and it further recites “wherein the information is sent from a third network node to a fourth network node, wherein the third network node and the fourth network node each is a network function or an entity of the core network.” The claim further limiting the definition of the information sent, the third network node, and the fourth network node, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Examiner’s note: Claims 7-8 are integrated into practical applications which are NOT a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
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 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)(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 1-7, 9-18, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Teyeb et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0239755), hereinafter Teyeb.
Claim 1. Teyeb discloses [a] method, comprising:
sending, by a first network node to a second network node, configuration information (See Parag. [0097-0098]; a network node is capable of operating as an IAB node (a second network node) comprising a DU and a MT. The IAB node performs a method comprising: obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU ... obtaining configuration information comprises receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU (a first network node)),
wherein the configuration information is associated with a node capable of providing at least one user plane (UP) function (See Parag. [0097]; obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU (a node). See Parag. [0008]; The IAB-donor is treated as a single logical node that comprises a set of functions such as gNB-DU, gNB-CU-CP, gNB-CU-UP and potentially other functions. Examiner’s note: According to claim 2 below, the at least one UP function includes a gNB centralized unit UP (gNB-CU-UP) function).
Claim 2. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb further discloses wherein: the at least one UP function includes a gNB centralized unit UP (gNB-CU-UP) function (See Parag. [0008]; The IAB-donor is treated as a single logical node that comprises a set of functions such as gNB-DU, gNB-CU-CP, gNB-CU-UP and potentially other functions).
Claim 3. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb further discloses wherein the second network node includes at least one of: the node, a mobile termination (MT) function of the node, a distributed unit (DU) function of the node, or a UP function of the node (See Parag. [0097-0098]; a network node is capable of operating as an IAB node (the second network node) comprising a DU and a MT. See also Parag. [0094-0095]; “IAB-mobile termination (IAB-MT),” “distributed unit (DU).” See also Parag. [0152]; the distributed unit (DU) of the IAB node).
Claim 4. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising: receiving, by the first network node from the second network node, first information comprising at least one of: an indication of the second network node which is a mobile node, an indication or a capability of the second network node to provide the at least one UP function, or a number of UP function modules localized in the second network node (See Parag. [0095]; the source donor CU (the first network node) provides the target donor CU with information about the distributed unit (DU) of the migrating IAB node (the second network node) (e.g., served cells, transport layer addresses, etc.). See Parag. [0163]; in the handover request, the source donor CU provides to the target donor CU the latest information about the IAB node's end of the F1 connection (i.e., the information received from the IAB node when the F1 connection with the source donor CU is set up, as well as any update of the F1 connection afterwards until the handover, e.g. additional info received via gNB-DU configuration update). Examiner’s interpretation: The Information about the distributed unit (DU) of the migrating IAB node are sent to the source donor CU from the IAB node).
Claim 5. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb further discloses wherein a parent node of the second network node broadcasts information on the first network node’s capability of supporting communication with the node capable of providing the at least one UP function, or information on allowing access of the node capable of providing the at least one UP function (See Parag. [0005]; The IAB nodes also have a mobile termination (MT) part used to communicate with their parent nodes. See Parag. [0010] and Fig. 1; The IAB nodes and IAB donor include the Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP), which is used for routing of packets to the appropriate downstream/upstream node and also mapping the user equipment (UE) bearer data to the proper backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel (and also between ingress and egress backhaul RLC channels in intermediate IAB nodes) to satisfy the end to end QoS requirements of bearers. See also Parag. [0153]).
Claim 6. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1
Teyeb further discloses comprising at least one of:
sending, by the first network node to the second network node, the first network node’s capability of supporting communication with the node capable of providing the at least one UP function, or info on allowing access of the node capable of providing the at least one UP function;
sending, by the first network node to a third network node, the second network node’s capabilities which include whether the at least one UP function is supported (See Parag. [0095]; the source donor CU (the first network node) provides the target donor CU (third network node) with information about the distributed unit (DU) of the migrating IAB node (the second network node) (e.g., served cells, transport layer addresses, etc.), and the target donor CU uses the information to respond with the F1-setup response message to the DU of the IAB node, after the IAB-MT is handed over to it. See Parag. [0008]; The IAB-donor is treated as a single logical node that comprises a set of functions such as gNB-DU, gNB-CU-CP, gNB-CU-UP and potentially other functions. Examiner’s interpretation: The Examiner notes that the claim requires only one limitation (at least one of));
receiving, by the first network node from the third network node, an indication of whether the second network node is authorized to provide of support the at least one UP function;
exchanging, by the first network node with the third network node before, after or during integration of the second network node, capabilities that include whether the first or third network node can serve the node capable of providing the at least one UP function; or
exchanging, by the third network node with the fourth network node before, after or during the integration of the second network node, capabilities that include whether the third or fourth network node can serve the node capable of providing the at least one UP function.
Claim 7. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb further discloses wherein at least one of:
the first network node establishes or modifies a backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) for carrying traffic between the first network node and a UP function of the second network node (See Parag. [0010]; The IAB nodes and IAB donor include the Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP), which is used for routing of packets to the appropriate downstream/upstream node and also mapping the user equipment (UE) bearer data to the proper backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel (and also between ingress and egress backhaul RLC channels in intermediate IAB nodes) to satisfy the end to end QoS requirements of bearers. Examiner’s interpretation: The Examiner notes that the claim requires only one limitation (at least one of));
the first network node configures a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) routing identifier (ID) for traffic between the first network node and the UP function of the second network node;
traffic between the first network node and the UP function of the second network node is transferred using the BH RLC channel and the BAP routing ID used for non-UP traffic or uplink non-UP traffic; or a traffic type of the non-UP traffic includes at least one of: UE-associated F1 application protocol (F1AP), non- UE-associated F1AP, non-F1, BAP control PDU, UE-associated E1 application protocol (E1AP), non-UE-associated E1AP, or non-E1.
Claim 9. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising:
receiving, by the first network node from the second network node, a request for at least one IP address, wherein the request is for each of a plurality of usages comprising at least one of: all traffic, F1 user plane interface (F1-U) traffic, F1 control plane interface (F1-C) traffic, non-F1 traffic, non-E1 traffic, E1 traffic, or user plane traffic via an NG-U interface (See Parag. [0240]; after a handover of the IAB node to the target donor, the network node establishes the interface between the IAB node DU and the target IAB donor CU based on the obtained configuration information. For example, the network node may send an F1 Setup request to the IP address of the target IAB donor. See Parag. [0046]; The IP layer of F1-C only supports point-to-point transmission for delivering F1AP message. See also Parag. [0152-0153]); and
sending, by the first network node to the second network node, at least one of: one or more IPv6 addresses or one 64-bit IPv6 prefix for each of the usages, or one or more IPv4 addresses for each of the usages (See Parag. [0097-0098]; The IAB node performs a method comprising: obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU ... obtaining configuration information comprises receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU (the first network node). See Parag. [0100]; the configuration information comprises a transport layer address of the target IAB donor CU. See Parag. [0046]; The gNB-CU and gNB-DU shall support IPv6 (IETF RFC 8200) and/or IPv4 (IETF RFC 791)).
Claim 10. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising: receiving, by the first network node from the second network node, at least one of: a number of IP addresses requested, or a number of IP addresses used for each of a plurality of usages (See Parag. [0154]; he IAB node initiates the F1 setup procedure with the target CU, using the information acquired about the target CU from the previous step (e.g., the IP address provided as part of the target CU information provided in the previous step is used as the destination address on the IP packet that is carrying the F1 setup request message)).
Claim 11. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising at least one of:
receiving, by the first network node, a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) address via a message from a UP function of the second network node;
sending, by the first network node to the second network node, an IP address of the first network node; or sending, by the first network node to the second network node, a backhaul (BH) configuration for traffic between the first network node and the UP function of the second network node (See Parag. [0097-0098]; a network node is capable of operating as an IAB (integrated access and backhaul) node (the second network node) comprising a DU and a MT. The IAB node performs a method comprising: obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU ... obtaining configuration information comprises receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU (the first network node). Examiner’s interpretation: The Examiner notes that the claim requires only one limitation (at least one of)).
Claim 12. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising: receiving, by the first network node from the second network node, a first message comprising at least one of: an F1 user plane interface (F1-U) uplink (UL) tunnel endpoint identifier (TEID) or a transport layer address (See Parag. [0095]; the source donor CU (the first network node) provides the target donor CU with information about the distributed unit (DU) of the migrating IAB node (the second network node) (e.g., served cells, transport layer addresses, etc.). See Parag. [0163]; in the handover request, the source donor CU provides to the target donor CU the latest information about the IAB node's end of the F1 connection (i.e., the information received from the IAB node when the F1 connection with the source donor CU is set up, as well as any update of the F1 connection afterwards until the handover, e.g. additional info received via gNB-DU configuration update). Examiner’s interpretation: The Information about the distributed unit (DU) of the migrating IAB node are sent to the source donor CU from the IAB node).
Claim 13. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 12,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising: sending, by the first network node to the UP function of the second network node, a second message comprising at least one of: a F1-U DL TEID or a transport layer address (See Parag. [0097-0098]; a network node is capable of operating as an IAB node (the second network node) comprising a DU and a MT. The IAB node performs a method comprising: obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU ... obtaining configuration information comprises receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU (the first network node). See Parag. [0100]; the configuration information comprises a transport layer address of the target IAB donor CU).
Claim 14. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising: sending, by the first network node, quality-of-service (QoS) flow level QoS parameters of the backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) channel (See Parag. [0010]; The IAB nodes and IAB donor include the Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP), which is used for routing of packets to the appropriate downstream/upstream node and also mapping the user equipment (UE) bearer data to the proper backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel (and also between ingress and egress backhaul RLC channels in intermediate IAB nodes) to satisfy the end to end QoS requirements of bearers).
Claim 15. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 14,
Teyeb further discloses wherein a protocol data unit (PDU) session and a BH RLC channel has a one-to-one mapping or a many-to-one mapping (See Parag. [0012-0014]; FIG. 4 illustrates an example functional view of the BAP sublayer ... In FIG. 4, the receiving part on the BAP entity delivers BAP protocol data units (PDUs) to the transmitting part on the collocated BAP entity ... The BAP sublayer provides data transfer services to upper layers. The BAP sublayer expects the following services from lower layers per RLC entity ... The BAP sublayer supports the following functions: data transfer; determination of BAP destination and path for packets from upper layers; determination of egress backhaul RLC channels for packets routed to next hop; routing of packets to next hop; differentiating traffic to be delivered to upper layers from traffic to be delivered to egress link; and flow control feedback and polling signaling).
Claim 16. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising: sending, by the first network node to the second network node, uplink backhaul (BH) information, wherein the uplink BH information includes at least one of a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) routing identifier (ID), a next-hop BAP address, or an ID of an egress BH RLC channel (See Parag. [0010]; The IAB nodes and IAB donor include the Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP), which is used for routing of packets to the appropriate downstream/upstream node and also mapping the user equipment (UE) bearer data to the proper backhaul radio link control (RLC) channel (and also between ingress and egress backhaul RLC channels in intermediate IAB nodes) to satisfy the end to end QoS requirements of bearers).
Claim 17. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Teyeb discloses the method further comprising:
sending, by the first network node to a third network node, a message with information comprising at least one of: a mapping between an IP security (IPsec) transport layer address and a list of an uplink or downlink GPRS tunneling protocol (GTP) transport layer address, or at least one of an IP address, a differentiated services code point (DSCP) or a flow label configuration, on each protocol data unit (PDU) session or GTP tunnel between an UP function of the second network node and a core network (See Parag. [0097-0098]; The IAB node performs a method comprising: obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU ... obtaining configuration information comprises receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU. Receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU may comprise receiving a F1 message at the IAB node DU or receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU comprises receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message at the IAB node MT. See Parag. [0100]; the configuration information comprises a transport layer address (at least one of an IP address) of the target IAB donor CU).
Claim 18. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 17,
Teyeb further discloses wherein the information is sent from a third network node to a fourth network node, wherein the third network node and the fourth network node each is a network function or an entity of the core network (See Parag. [0097-0098]; ... obtaining configuration information comprises receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU. Receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU may comprise receiving a F1 message at the IAB node DU or receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU comprises receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message at the IAB node MT).
Claim 32. Teyeb discloses [a] method, comprising:
receiving, by a second network node from a first network node, configuration information (See Parag. [0097-0098]; a network node is capable of operating as an IAB node (a second network node) comprising a DU and a MT. The IAB node performs a method comprising: obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU ... obtaining configuration information comprises receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU (a first network node)),
wherein the configuration information is associated with a node capable of providing at least one user plane (UP) function (See Parag. [0097]; obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU (a node). See Parag. [0008]; The IAB-donor is treated as a single logical node that comprises a set of functions such as gNB-DU, gNB-CU-CP, gNB-CU-UP and potentially other functions. Examiner’s note: According to the specification, the at least one UP function includes a gNB centralized unit UP (gNB-CU-UP) function).
Claim 34. Teyeb discloses [a] wireless communication device comprising a memory for storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Parag. [0186] [0189]) to:
send, by a first network node to a second network node, configuration information (See Parag. [0097-0098]; a network node is capable of operating as an IAB node (a second network node) comprising a DU and a MT. The IAB node performs a method comprising: obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU ... obtaining configuration information comprises receiving the configuration information from a source IAB donor CU (a first network node));
wherein the configuration information is associated with a node capable of providing at least one user plane (UP) function (See Parag. [0097]; obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor CU (a node). See Parag. [0008]; The IAB-donor is treated as a single logical node that comprises a set of functions such as gNB-DU, gNB-CU-CP, gNB-CU-UP and potentially other functions. Examiner’s note: According to the specification, the at least one UP function includes a gNB centralized unit UP (gNB-CU-UP) function).
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 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0239755), hereinafter Teyeb; in view of Xu et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0189089), hereinafter Xu.
Claim 8. Teyeb discloses [t]he method of claim 7,
Teyeb doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the traffic between the first network node and the UP function of the second network node includes at least of: non-UP traffic, E1 traffic, or non-E1 traffic.
However, Xu discloses wherein the traffic between the first network node and the UP function of the second network node includes at least of: non-UP traffic, E1 traffic, or non-E1 traffic (See Parag. [0056]; the CU-UP may send its own core network connection capability information to the CU-CP via a GNB-CU-UP E1 SETUP REQUEST message or a GNB-CU-CP E1 SETUP RESPONSE message. See also Parag. [0173]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb, to include wherein the traffic between the first network node and the UP function of the second network node includes E1 traffic, as taught by Xu. This would be convenient such that the CU-CP can determine a corresponding network access mode for the user equipment according to the core network connection capability of the CU-UP (Xu, Parag. [0066]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al. (US 12,520,131) – Related art in the area of inter-donor Distributed Unit (DU) topology adaptation in integrated access and backhaul (IAB) communication, (Abstract; There is provided an apparatus, said apparatus including circuitry for, at a distributed unit of a relay node, determining that an internet protocol, IP, address of the distributed unit of the relay node used for communicating with a centralised unit of a donor node over a first communication path including a first donor distributed unit is to be reused after a change from the first communication path to a second communication path including a second donor distributed unit and providing an indication to the control plane of the centralised unit of the donor node that the IP address is to be reused).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELBASST TALIOUA whose telephone number is (571)272-4061. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5:30 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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571-270-1684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Abdelbasst Talioua/Examiner, Art Unit 2445