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 .
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.
Double Patenting
Examiner analyzed the claims of the instant application against the parent and grandparent application to determine whether double patenting is present.
Looking to Claim 1 of the instant application, it reads:
1. A base station comprising:
a receiver configured to receive from a wireless communication apparatus, an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) indication indicating that the wireless communication apparatus is an IAB node having a user equipment function and a base station function, and
a transmitter configured to transmit the IAB indication to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) included in a core network.
Looking to Claim 1 of the parent application (US Patent 12,225,598), it reads:
1. A base station comprising:
a network communicator configured to transmit a handover request message for handing over a wireless communication apparatus having a RRC connection with the base station to another base station, wherein
the handover request message includes an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) indication indicating that the wireless communication apparatus is an IAB node having a user equipment function and a base station function,
the IAB node has a UE function configured to perform radio communication with an upper node and a gNB function configured to perform radio communications with a lower node,
the base station comprises a transmitter configured to broadcast a System Information Block (SIB) including information indicating that the base station supports the IAB node,
and
the network communicator is configured to transmit the IAB indication to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) included in a core network.
Examiner submits that the parent application is patentably distinct from the instant application as the UE is the source of the indication and the AMF is the ultimate destination, the base station is an intermediary receiving the indication from the UE and passing it along to the AMF.
They are distinct because the eNB is the source of the handover request and the indication in the parent patent, and the differences are not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the basis of the teaching of the parent patent.
Additionally, there are additional limitations present in the parent case such as the transmission of a system information block that is not required in the child case.
Looking to Claim 1 and 5 of the grandparent application (US Patent 11,350,467), it reads:
1. A relay node configured to have a user equipment function and a base station function, the relay node comprising:
a controller configured to use the user equipment function to establish a Radio Resource Control, RRC, connection with a base station; and
a receiver configured to receive, from the base station, a RRC reconfiguration message for establishing, while maintaining the RRC connection, a backhaul Radio Link Control, RLC, channel between the relay node and the base station.
5. The relay node according to claim 1, further comprising
a transmitter configured to transmit an RRC message to the base station to confirm completion of establishment of the RRC connection, wherein
the RRC message includes an indication indicating that the relay node has a relay function.
Looking to the above claims, Examiner submits that there is no discussion about sending the indication to a core network function such as an MME or an AMF, there is no indication of the base station of sending the indication to anyone at all. Also, to even get to this analysis, essentially the entire text of the independent claim would need to be removed.
There are also additional limitations in the grandparent case such as the establishment of the connection under RRC or RLC that are not required in the instant application.
For this reason, Examiner submits that there is not a reasonable double patenting rejection, and therefore one will not be made at this time.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ [0001], the phrase “perform radio communications with a upper node” should be changed to “perform radio communications with an upper node.” The same issue occurs in ¶ [0021].
In ¶ [0020], the term “eNB 200” appears incorrect in the context, and should be changed to “gNB 200.” Examiner notes that even though eNB is the correct term for LTE base stations, and is correctly discussed in ¶ [0013] and [0112], it appears that the document is referring to the 5G gNB for the disclosure in ¶ [0020], and not the 3G eNB.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bales (US 10,148,340) in view of Buckley (US 2019/0110238).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Bales teaches a base station (figure 3, #111) comprising:
a receiver configured to receive from a wireless communication apparatus,
an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) indication indicating that the wireless communication apparatus is an IAB node having a user equipment function and a base station function (figure 6, see specifically relay attach, and figure 3, the e-node b and relay equipment function), and
a transmitter configured to transmit the IAB indication to an mobility management entity (MME) included in a core network.
Bales fails to explicitly teach an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF).
Buckley from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), (¶ [0215], see specifically MME/AMF receives an indication that it is a relay UE, and ¶ [0036], see specifically the discussion about the LTE MME and the AMF of the 5G NR network.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use the AMF of the 5G NR network in the system of Buckley in the system of Bales.
The motivation is that Bales is directed to a 4G LTE network as can be seen from the introduction and technical background (column 1, lines 5-25, see specifically LTE).
As technology advances terminology and location of network functions and the devices that perform those functions change, as can be seen by Buckley in ¶ [0036], the functions that would have been performed by an MME in 4G LTE are performed by the AMF in 5G NR. Similarly, in 4G LTE, the term relay was used, where in 5G NR the term is IAB or Integrated Access and Backhaul.
Examiner submits that the system of Bales would evolve to stay relevant and would be adapted to work over a 5G NR network as it would give the system of Bales improved industrial applicability and avoid obsolescence to work in a 5G Network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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 M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights