DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed April 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (hereinafter Levine) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0365954 A1) in view of Yuan et al. (hereinafter Yuan) (U.S. Patent # 9,078,286 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Levine teaches and discloses a wireless backhaul resiliency system incorporating a mesh network ([0026]; figure 1), comprising:
a first base station (one of eNodeBs, 106a-f, figure 1) having a first wireless mesh functionality ([0026]; “…X2 interface is also configured to support a mesh network topology for eNodeBs. In such topology the eNodeBs support routing/tunneling data packets between mobile wireless devices and packet switched core backhaul networks through multiple eNodeB cells…”); and
a first mesh network node (106/107, figure 1) coupled to the first base station; wherein the first base station configured to: utilize utilizing a the first mesh network node for a first wide area network (WAN)/backhaul connection (figure 1; [0024]; [0025]; [0026]; “…X2 interface is also configured to support a mesh network topology for eNodeBs. In such topology the eNodeBs support routing/tunneling data packets between mobile wireless devices and packet switched core backhaul networks through multiple eNodeB cells. Such routing/tunneling enables the eNodeBs to balance traffic load over S1 interfaces and/or provide redundancy in the case of failure of an S1 interface connection/link between an eNodeB macrocell and a corresponding packet switched core backhaul network…”; [0027]; teaches a first network node having a connection/link to the network); and
wherein the first mesh network node is configured to: due to the first WAN/backhaul connection failing; and re-route data from the first base station to a core network via the first mesh network node, the wireless mesh connection, the second mesh network node, and the second WAN/backhaul connection in the event of a failure, wherein the wireless mesh connection is used to send X2 messages and backhaul data for the first base station (figure 1; [0024]; [0025]; [0026]; “…X2 interface is also configured to support a mesh network topology for eNodeBs…routing/tunneling enables the eNodeBs to balance traffic load over S1 interfaces and/or provide redundancy in the case of failure of an S1 interface connection/link between an eNodeB macrocell and a corresponding packet switched core backhaul network…”; [0027]; teaches providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB, where the backhaul connection is a wired connection).
However, Levine may not explicitly disclose based on a wireless mesh connection between the first mesh network node and a second mesh network node being unavailable, direct the second mesh network node to activate the wireless mesh connection, the second mesh network node having a second wireless mesh functionality, being coupled to a second base station and being utilized by the second base station for a second WAN/backhaul connection.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yuan teaches and suggests based on a wireless mesh connection (wired backhaul connection failure) between the first mesh network node (wired base transceiver station, figures 1-3) and a second mesh network node (other wired base transceiver station, figures 1-3) being unavailable, direct the second mesh network node to activate the wireless mesh connection, the second mesh network node having a second wireless mesh functionality, being coupled to a second base station (mesh base transceiver station, figure 1-3) and being utilized by the second base station for a second WAN/backhaul connection (column 5, lines 18-39; column 6, lines 30-41; figures 1-3; teaches based on a wired backhaul connection failure, determining a mesh connection with the mesh base transceiver station utilized to connect to the WAN/backhaul connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to based on a wired backhaul connection failure, determining a mesh connection with the mesh base transceiver station utilized to connect to the WAN/backhaul connection as taught by Yuan with the system for providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB as disclosed by Levine for the purpose of increasing the efficiency in the cost of deploying mesh base transceiver stations with sufficient backhaul access, and to further refining the efficiency in the data transmission from a mesh base transceiver station to a backhaul access node to take advantage of the bandwidth of the mesh data network technology, as suggested by Yuan.
Regarding claim 2, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the first base station further comprises a routing functionality configured to install a route to the core network based on connectivity of the first WAN/backhaul connection (figure 1; [0026]; [0027]; [0028]; teaches the eNodeB comprises routing functionality to route to the core network via the backhaul connections).
Regarding claim 3, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the first and the second base stations are Long Term Evolution (LTE) eNodeBs and wherein the wireless mesh connection is a Wi-Fi connection (figure 1; [0023]; [0024]; LTE eNodeBs and wireless network interconnections).
Regarding claim 4, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the first mesh network node is colocated with the first base station and wherein the second mesh network node is colocated with the second base station (figure 1; [0024]; [0027]; depicts co-location of the eNodeB and the network node).
Regarding claim 6, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the first and the second base stations send and receive X2 protocol messages via the wireless mesh connection between the first wireless mesh functionality at the first base station and the second wireless mesh functionality at the second base station without transiting through the core network (figure 1; [0025]; [0026]; teaches communicating X2 message through the X2 interface).
Regarding claim 7, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the first and the second base station each further comprise two or more radios for wireless mesh functionality (figure 1; [0024]; teaches the eNodeBs comprise radios for wireless communication).
Regarding claim 8, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the first and the second mesh network nodes are wirelessly coupled to other mesh nodes in a ring topology (figure 1; [0026]; [0034]; teaches the eNodeBs are configured in a mesh network based on alternative network topologies).
Regarding claim 11, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the wireless mesh connection is at least one of an IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n/ac/ad/af/ah Wi-Fi connection, a microwave connection, a Long Term Evolution (LTE) connection, a wireless connection with a frequency between 5.0 and 6.0 GHz, a wireless connection with a frequency between 2.2 and 2.5 GHz, and a wireless connection with a frequency between 20 and 65 GHz (figure 1; [0006]; [0024]; LTE).
Regarding claim 12, Levine teaches and discloses a method, comprising: sending, from a first Long Term Evolution (LTE) base station (one of eNodeBs, 106a-f, figure 1), data packets to a core network (108, figure 1) over a wired backhaul connection; identifying a failure of the wired backhaul connection at the first LTE base station (figure 1; [0024]; [0025]; [0026]; [0027]; teaches a first network node having a connection/link to the network);
wherein a wireless mesh network is provided for the first LTE base station (one of eNodeBs, 106a-f, figure 1) and a second LTE base station (another of eNodeBs, 106a-f, figure 1), the wireless mesh network including a first mesh network node (106/107, figure 1) coupled to the first base station and a second mesh network node (106/107, figure 1) coupled to the second base station [0024]; [0025]; [0026]; [0027]; teaches a first network node having a connection/link to the network); and re-routing data packets at the first LTE base station to the core network via the first mesh network node, the wireless mesh connection, the second mesh network node, and the second LTE base station, wherein the wireless mesh connection is used to send X2 messages and backhaul data for the first base station (figure 1; [0024]; [0025]; [0026]; “…X2 interface is also configured to support a mesh network topology for eNodeBs…routing/tunneling enables the eNodeBs to balance traffic load over S1 interfaces and/or provide redundancy in the case of failure of an S1 interface connection/link between an eNodeB macrocell and a corresponding packet switched core backhaul network…”; [0027]; teaches providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB).
However, Levine may not explicitly disclose based on a wireless mesh connection between the first mesh network node and the second mesh network node being unavailable, direct the second mesh network node to activate the wireless mesh connection.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yuan teaches and suggests based on a wireless mesh connection (wired backhaul connection failure) between the first mesh network node (wired base transceiver station, figures 1-3) and the second mesh network node (other wired base transceiver station, figures 1-3) being unavailable, direct the second mesh network node to activate the wireless mesh connection (column 5, lines 18-39; column 6, lines 30-41; figures 1-3; teaches based on a wired backhaul connection failure, determining a mesh connection with the mesh base transceiver station utilized to connect to the WAN/backhaul connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to based on a wired backhaul connection failure, determining a mesh connection with the mesh base transceiver station utilized to connect to the WAN/backhaul connection as taught by Yuan with the system for providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB as disclosed by Levine for the purpose of increasing the efficiency in the cost of deploying mesh base transceiver stations with sufficient backhaul access, and to further refining the efficiency in the data transmission from a mesh base transceiver station to a backhaul access node to take advantage of the bandwidth of the mesh data network technology, as suggested by Yuan.
Regarding claim 13, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches detecting a reconnection of the wired backhaul connection at the first LTE base station and re-routing data packets at the first LTE base station to the core network via the wired backhaul connection (figure 1; [0026]; [0027]; [0028]; teaches the eNodeB comprises routing functionality to route to the core network via the backhaul connections).
Regarding claim 15, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the first LTE base station and the second LTE base station send and receive X2 protocol messages between each other via the wireless mesh network (figure 1; [0025]; [0026]; teaches communicating X2 message through the X2 interface).
Regarding claim 16, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the first LTE base station and the second LTE base station are configured with two or more radios for wireless mesh functionality (figure 1; [0024]; teaches the eNodeBs comprise radios for wireless communication).
Regarding claim 17, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches the first mesh network node and the second mesh network node wirelessly coupling to other mesh nodes in a ring topology (figure 1; [0026]; [0034]; teaches the eNodeBs are configured in a mesh network based on alternative network topologies).
Regarding claim 20, Levine, as modified by Yuan, further teaches wherein the wireless mesh network is at least one of an IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n/ac/ad/af/ah Wi-Fi connection, a microwave connection, a Long Term Evolution (LTE) connection, a wireless connection with a frequency between 5.0 and 6.0 GHz, a wireless connection with a frequency between 2.2 and 2.5 GHz, and a wireless connection with a frequency between 20 and 65 GHz (figure 1; [0006]; [0024]; LTE).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (hereinafter Levine) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0365954 A1) in view of Yuan et al. (hereinafter Yuan) (U.S. Patent # 9,078,286 B1), and further in view of Blankenship et al. (hereinafter Blankenship) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2007/0264971 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Levine, as modified by Yuan, discloses the claimed invention, but may not expressly disclose wherein the first WAN/backhaul connection and the second WAN/backhaul connection are in communication with different network interconnection points for communication with the core network.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Blankenship teaches and suggests wherein the first WAN/backhaul connection (one of the physical backhaul link, 106, depicted figures 1-2) and the second WAN/backhaul connection (another one of the physical backhaul link, 106, depicted figures 1-2) are in communication with different network interconnection points for communication with the core network (figures 1-2; [0020]; [0039]; teaches a first and second backhaul links to the network, where the first and second backhaul links are separate interconnections to the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first and second backhaul links to the network, where the first and second backhaul links are separate interconnections to the network as taught by Blankenship with the system for providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB as disclosed by Levine, as modified by Yuan, for the purpose of providing redundancy and resiliency in the network in case of a failure, as suggested by Blankenship.
Regarding claim 14, Levine, as modified by Yuan, discloses the claimed invention, but may not expressly disclose wherein the wired backhaul connection and the second LTE base station are in communication with different network interconnection points for communication with the core network.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Blankenship teaches and suggests wherein the wired backhaul connection (one of the physical backhaul link, 106, depicted figures 1-2) and the second LTE base station are in communication with different network interconnection points for communication with the core network (figures 1-2; [0020]; [0039]; teaches a first and second backhaul links to the network, where the first and second backhaul links are separate interconnections to the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first and second backhaul links to the network, where the first and second backhaul links are separate interconnections to the network as taught by Blankenship with the system for providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB as disclosed by Levine, as modified by Yuan, for the purpose of providing redundancy and resiliency in the network in case of a failure, as suggested by Blankenship.
Claims 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (hereinafter Levine) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0365954 A1) in view of Yuan et al. (hereinafter Yuan) (U.S. Patent # 9,078,286 B1), and further in view of Dayama (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2007/0030809 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Levine, as modified by Yuan, discloses the claimed invention, but may not expressly disclose wherein the first mesh network node is configured to fail over to at least one wireless mesh connection based on an ordered pre-configured list of wireless mesh connections.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Dayama teaches and suggests wherein the first mesh network node is configured to fail over to at least one wireless mesh connection based on an ordered pre-configured list of wireless mesh connections ([0024]; [0034]; [0035]; teaches when a failure or disruption occurs with the backhaul path, an alternate backhaul path is determined based on a pre-configured ranking of available, alternate backhaul paths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an alternate backhaul path is determined based on a pre-configured ranking of available, alternate backhaul paths as taught by Dayama with the system for providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB as disclosed by Levine, as modified by Yuan, for the purpose of providing redundancy and resiliency in the network in case of a failure, as suggested by Dayama.
Regarding claim 10, Levine, as modified by Yuan, discloses the claimed invention, but may not expressly disclose wherein the first mesh network node is configured to fail over to the wireless mesh connection at the second mesh network node based on a geographic proximity between the first mesh network node and the second mesh network node.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Dayama teaches and suggests wherein the first mesh network node is configured to fail over to the wireless mesh connection at the second mesh network node based on a geographic proximity between the first mesh network node and the second mesh network node ([0023]; [0024]; [0034]; teaches when a failure or disruption occurs with the backhaul path, an alternate backhaul path is determined based on a metric, such as location of the network nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an alternate backhaul path is determined based on a metric, such as location of the network nodes as taught by Dayama with the system for providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB as disclosed by Levine, as modified by Yuan, for the purpose of providing redundancy and resiliency in the network in case of a failure, as suggested by Dayama.
Regarding claim 18, Levine, as modified by Yuan, discloses the claimed invention, but may not expressly disclose the first LTE base station failing over to at least one wireless mesh connection based on an ordered pre-configured list of wireless mesh connections.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Dayama teaches and suggests the first LTE base station failing over to at least one wireless mesh connection based on an ordered pre-configured list of wireless mesh connections ([0024]; [0034]; [0035]; teaches when a failure or disruption occurs with the backhaul path, an alternate backhaul path is determined based on a pre-configured ranking of available, alternate backhaul paths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an alternate backhaul path is determined based on a pre-configured ranking of available, alternate backhaul paths as taught by Dayama with the system for providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB as disclosed by Levine, as modified by Yuan, for the purpose of providing redundancy and resiliency in the network in case of a failure, as suggested by Dayama.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (hereinafter Levine) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0365954 A1) in view of Yuan et al. (hereinafter Yuan) (U.S. Patent # 9,078,286 B1), and further in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2014/0126356 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Levine, as modified by Yuan, discloses the claimed invention, but may not expressly disclose the first LTE base station failing over to the second LTE base station based on a geographic proximity between the first LTE base station and the second LTE base station.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Lee further teaches and suggests the first LTE base station failing over to the second LTE base station based on a geographic proximity between the first LTE base station and the second LTE base station (figures 1B and 3; [0004]; “…when a primary communication path fails, is interrupted, or is otherwise unavailable, one or more of the wireless access points within proximity of another wireless access point can switch (e.g., failover) to the redundant network…”; [0039]; teaches a wireless access point failing over to another access point based on the proximity between the wireless access points).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wireless access point failing over to another access point based on the proximity between the wireless access points as taught by Lee with the system for providing backhaul redundancy in case of failure and traffic balancing to another eNodeB as disclosed by Levine, as modified by Yuan, for the purpose of providing redundancy and load balancing in the network in case of a failure, as suggested by Lee.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yuan et al. (U.S. Patent # 9,078,286 B1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights