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 .
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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,094 (referred to as P094). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1 of P094.
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 2 of P094.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 3 of P094.
Re claim 4: Claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 4 of P094.
Re claim 5: Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 5 of P094.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 6 of P094.
Re claim 7: Claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 7 of P094.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 8 of P094.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 9 of P094.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 10 of P094.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 11 of P094.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 12 of P094.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 13 of P094.
Re claim 4: Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 14 of P094.
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.
Claim(s) 1,5,6,10,13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20210315040) in view of Narasimha (US 20210378041).
Re claim 1:
Wu discloses a method performed by an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, comprising: receiving, from a parent node of the IAB node, (Fig.5 ref. 508 Receiving Indication? and Para.[0050] At step 508, IAB node 2 may receive the signaling message indicating the failure in the backhaul link between IAB Donor and IAB node 3 – Examiner Note: IAB node 3 is a parent node to IAB node 2);
declaring an RLF based on a reception of the BH RLF indication received from the parent node of the IAB node (Fig.5 ref. 510 RLF happens);
after the RLF is declared, initiating a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure (Fig.5 ref. 514 and Para.[0052] At step 514, JAB node 2 may perform the backhaul link re-establishment with the selected node. In some embodiments, JAB node 2 may transmit a re-establishment request to JAB node 0); and
in case the RRC re-establishment procedure fails, transmitting, to a child node of the IAB node, (Para.[0514] If the backhaul link re-establishment has failed, JAB node 2 may transmit the received signaling message indicating the failure in the backhaul link to its downstream node, e.g., JAB node 1),
wherein the BH RLF indication is transferred in a downstream direction (Para.[0514] If the backhaul link re-establishment has failed, JAB node 2 may transmit the received signaling message indicating the failure in the backhaul link to its downstream node, e.g., JAB node 1).
Wu does not explicitly disclose a protocol data unit (PDU) comprising a backhaul (BH) radio link failure (RLF) indication over a BH radio link control (RLC) channel.
Narasimha discloses a protocol data unit (PDU) comprising a backhaul (BH) radio link failure (RLF) indication over a BH radio link control (RLC) channel (Para.[0048] The backhaul RLF indication can be a MAC message (such as a MAC control element) or an RLC message (i.e., an RLC control protocol data unit (PDU)) and Para.[0022] a backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) channel).
Wu and Narasimha are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to include a PDU comprising a BH RLF as taught by Narasimha in order to enable recovery from backhaul failures while providing a topologically efficient network (Narasimha Para.[0014]).
Re claim 5:
Wu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after receiving the PDU comprising the BH RLF indication, starting a timer; and performing the RRC re-establishment procedure while the timer is running (Para.[0066] At step 604, the JAB node may transmit a re-establishment request to the selected node. In some embodiments, the JAB node may initiate a timer in response to the transmission of the re-establishment request. The JAB node may stop the timer in response to a successful link establishment between the JAB node and the selected node and Para.[0067] If the backhaul link re-establishment has failed and the timer has not expired, the IAB node may select another candidate node for re-establishment), and
wherein transmitting of the PDU comprising the BH RLF indication comprises transmitting the PDU comprising the BH RLF indication to the child node based on at least one of i) an expiry of the timer or ii) the failure of the RRC re-establishment procedure while the timer is running (Para.[0068] If the timer expires before a successful re-establishment, the IAB node may transmit to another IAB node, e.g., a downstream IAB node, a signaling message indicating the failure in the backhaul link).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, Wu in view of Narasimha meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 5, wherein a value of the timer is configured for the IAB node by a donor node via a higher layer signaling, or informed by the BH RLF indication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the timer by a donor using higher layer signaling because higher layer signaling is well known to be used for configuring communication parameters.
Re claim 10:
Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the initiating of the RRC re-establishment procedure comprises: selecting another parent node of the IAB node that is different from the parent node of the IAB node; and performing an attempt to establish a connection between the IAB node and the selected parent node (Para. [0048] Otherwise, if it is determined that there are one or more candidate nodes for backhaul link re-establishment, IAB node 3 may select a node from the one or more candidate nodes. In some embodiments, IAB node 3 may select IAB node 0 as the node to perform re-establishment. The procedure for selecting the candidate node to re-establish the backhaul link will be described later).
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Wu further discloses a transceiver; a memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, perform operations (Fig. 8).
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Wu further discloses a transceiver; a memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory, wherein the memory stores instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, perform operations (Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 7-9,11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20210315040) in view of Narasimha (US 20210378041) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koziol (US 20210274404).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Wu in view of Narasimha meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the initiating of the RRC re-establishment procedure comprises initiating the RRC re-establishment procedure based on: an early propagation condition being not configured for the IAB node; or the early propagation condition configured for the IAB node being not satisfied, wherein the early propagation condition is a condition for transmitting the BH RLF indication to the child node upon the early propagation condition being satisfied.
Koziol discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the initiating of the RRC re-establishment procedure comprises initiating the RRC re-establishment procedure based on: an early propagation condition being not configured for the IAB node; or the early propagation condition configured for the IAB node being not satisfied, wherein the early propagation condition is a condition for transmitting the BH RLF indication to the child node upon the early propagation condition being satisfied (Para. [0056] the handover configuration information may define, as a conditional handover preference processing, in case a radio link failure is determined as the radio link or physical layer issue, to skip a radio resource control reestablishment procedure and to start immediately the conditional handover procedure on the basis of the handover configuration information; [0057] the handover configuration information may define, as a conditional handover preference processing, in case a radio link failure is determined as the radio link or physical layer issue, to start a radio resource control reestablishment procedure and simultaneously to start the conditional handover procedure on the basis of the handover configuration information, and in case the radio resource control reestablishment procedure results in a successful connection of the communication element or function to the communication network, to stop the conditional handover procedure, and in case the conditional handover procedure is successful before the radio resource control reestablishment procedure, to complete the conditional handover procedure and to skip the radio resource control reestablishment procedure).
Wu and Koziol are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to include initiating RRC re-establishment based on conditions as taught by Koziol in order to avoid delays in connectivity recovery (Koziol Para.[0141]).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above, Wu in view of Narasimha meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the early propagation condition comprises at least one of: a first condition that a list of candidate nodes for the RRC re-establishment procedure is not configured for the IAB node; or a second condition that mobility commands of the candidate nodes are not configured for the IAB node.
Koziol discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the early propagation condition comprises at least one of: a first condition that a list of candidate nodes for the RRC re-establishment procedure is not configured for the IAB node; or a second condition that mobility commands of the candidate nodes are not configured for the IAB node (Para. [0056] the handover configuration information may define, as a conditional handover preference processing, in case a radio link failure is determined as the radio link or physical layer issue, to skip a radio resource control reestablishment procedure and to start immediately the conditional handover procedure on the basis of the handover configuration information; [0057] the handover configuration information may define, as a conditional handover preference processing, in case a radio link failure is determined as the radio link or physical layer issue, to start a radio resource control reestablishment procedure and simultaneously to start the conditional handover procedure on the basis of the handover configuration information, and in case the radio resource control reestablishment procedure results in a successful connection of the communication element or function to the communication network, to stop the conditional handover procedure, and in case the conditional handover procedure is successful before the radio resource control reestablishment procedure, to complete the conditional handover procedure and to skip the radio resource control reestablishment procedure).
Wu and Koziol are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to include initiating RRC re-establishment based on conditions as taught by Koziol in order to avoid delays in connectivity recovery (Koziol Para.[0141]).
Re claim 9:
As discussed above, Wu in view of Narasimha meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the early propagation condition is provided by a donor node to the IAB node, or informed by the BH RLF indication.
Koziol discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the early propagation condition is provided by a donor node to the IAB node, or informed by the BH RLF indication (Para.[0169] Like the gNB described in the previous examples, the DU part of an IAB node serves the UEs 10 connected to this IAB node and UE/MT parts of its IAB child nodes and Fig.7 ref. 2012 Handover configuration information forwarding portion)
Wu and Koziol are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to include conditional handover as taught by Koziol in order to avoid delays in connectivity recovery (Koziol Para.[0141]).
Re claim 11:
As discussed above, Wu in view of Narasimha meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a conditional handover from the parent node of the IAB node to another parent node, based on initiating the RRC re-establishment procedure.
Koziol discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a conditional handover from the parent node of the IAB node to another parent node, based on initiating the RRC re-establishment procedure (Para. [0056] the handover configuration information may define, as a conditional handover preference processing, in case a radio link failure is determined as the radio link or physical layer issue, to skip a radio resource control reestablishment procedure and to start immediately the conditional handover procedure on the basis of the handover configuration information; [0057] the handover configuration information may define, as a conditional handover preference processing, in case a radio link failure is determined as the radio link or physical layer issue, to start a radio resource control reestablishment procedure and simultaneously to start the conditional handover procedure on the basis of the handover configuration information, and in case the radio resource control reestablishment procedure results in a successful connection of the communication element or function to the communication network, to stop the conditional handover procedure, and in case the conditional handover procedure is successful before the radio resource control reestablishment procedure, to complete the conditional handover procedure and to skip the radio resource control reestablishment procedure).
Wu and Koziol are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to include conditional handover as taught by Koziol in order to avoid delays in connectivity recovery (Koziol Para.[0141]).
Re claim 12:
As discussed above, Wu in view of Narasimha meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the performing of the conditional handover comprises: receiving, from the parent node of the IAB node, handover conditions of candidate parent nodes; identifying a parent node among the candidate parent nodes which satisfies a handover condition based on a result of a measurement; and applying a handover command of the identified parent node to perform the conditional handover from a current parent node to the identified parent node.
Koziol discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the performing of the conditional handover comprises: receiving, from the parent node of the IAB node, handover conditions of candidate parent nodes; identifying a parent node among the candidate parent nodes which satisfies a handover condition based on a result of a measurement; and applying a handover command of the identified parent node to perform the conditional handover from a current parent node to the identified parent node (Para. [0056] the handover configuration information may define, as a conditional handover preference processing, in case a radio link failure is determined as the radio link or physical layer issue, to skip a radio resource control reestablishment procedure and to start immediately the conditional handover procedure on the basis of the handover configuration information; [0057] the handover configuration information may define, as a conditional handover preference processing, in case a radio link failure is determined as the radio link or physical layer issue, to start a radio resource control reestablishment procedure and simultaneously to start the conditional handover procedure on the basis of the handover configuration information, and in case the radio resource control reestablishment procedure results in a successful connection of the communication element or function to the communication network, to stop the conditional handover procedure, and in case the conditional handover procedure is successful before the radio resource control reestablishment procedure, to complete the conditional handover procedure and to skip the radio resource control reestablishment procedure).
Wu and Koziol are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to include conditional handover as taught by Koziol in order to avoid delays in connectivity recovery (Koziol Para.[0141]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huawei (“On backhaul link radio link failure handling for IAB” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Ad-Hoc Meeting 1901 R1-1901264) discloses a child node forwarding downstream a BH-RLF received from its parent node.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights