DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 10/13/2025 has been entered.
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 14-16, 18, 20, 22-24, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each of these claims, at least by virtue of their dependency, recite “the alternate link does not include radio resources reserved for the priority UE.” Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the above claim limitation in the application as filed. For instance, the phrase “radio resources” is only mentioned in [0033] but not with respect to reservations for a priority UE.
PRIOR ART
The following references are prior art:
1. US 2020/0044732 A1 (“Cui”) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) since it published Feb. 6, 2020 before May 6, 2020 the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. R2-181215 “Addition of Prioritized Random Access” ”) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) since it published 21st – 25th May 2018 before May 6, 2020 the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 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:
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
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.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 29
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui.
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Cui taught:
A method in an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network comprising a control node wherein the control node is a donor node in the IAB network, a first access node wherein the first access node is a parent node in the IAB network, and a second access node wherein the second access node is a child node of the first access node in the IAB network, wherein there is a first link between the control node and the first access node and there is a second link between the first access node and the second access node, and wherein the second access node provides network access to a non-priority user equipment, UE (Cui taught [0001] The present application relates generally to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to adjustment of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) communication link partition for emergency communications. [0003] In particular, NR access networks will seek to utilize the wireless communications links between donor distributed unit (DU) devices and relay distributed unit (DU) devices (backhaul links). [0021] The methods and operations (e.g., processes and logic flows) described in this specification can be performed by devices (e.g., a network controller 605, relay DUs, donor DUs, etc.) comprising processors that execute machine executable instructions. [0033] In example embodiments, an integrated access and backhaul environment can be implemented, wherein the backhaul transmission links between donor units, and the access transmission links between donor units and UEs, can be integrated. In this implementation, DUs can comprise a donor DU 210 that communicate with one or more relay DUs (e.g., relay DU 2121 , relay DU 2122) utilizing wireless "backhaul" links (e.g., backhaul links 2151-N in the plural, backhaul links 215 in the plural, backhaul link 215 in the singular in general). A donor DU 210 and a relay DU 212 and can communicate with one or more UEs (for example, in FIG. 3, UEs 1021-4 ) using wireless "access" links (e.g., access links 2201-N in the plural, access links 220 in the plural, access link 220 in the singular in general). [0035] Donor DUs are sometimes referred to as transmission-receive points (TRPs), and relay DUs are sometimes referred to as rTRPs. Donor DUs are also referred to as parent nodes, and relay DUs are also referred to as relay nodes. [0037] Donor DU can be sending to and receiving signals from both UE 1022 and from relay DU 2121. And relay DU 2122. Also, in the example of FIG. 2, a relay DU 2123 can communicate with a UE on access link 2204 and relay DU 2123 can also communicate with relay DU 2122 on a backhaul link 2153. [0050] There is provided a network controller that enables the dynamic optimization of access/backhaul partitioning in an IAB link, when triggered by an ERCN event, as well as the dynamic backhaul routing optimization for ERCN data. These operations can be implemented with centralized, distributed, or a hybrid control entity. [0051] FIG. 6 shows an example mobile radio access network (RAN) in which a network controller 605 (e.g., one or more network controllers performing one or more functions, which can be virtual functions) can manage several macro sites having donor DUs (e.g., donor DU 2101-4 labeled "A" through "D," respectively, and manage several metrosites comprising relay DUs (e.g., relay DUs 2121-6, labeled "al" to "a6," respectively. The Examiner finds that Cui taught a method in a network (e.g., networks illustrated in FIG. 2, 3, 6) comprising a control node (i.e., hybrid control by the network controller 605 managing donor DU 210), a first access node (e.g., relay DU 2122, parent to 2123), and a second access node (e.g., 2123, child to 2122), wherein there is a first link (e.g., backhaul 2152) between the control node and the first access node and there is a second link (e.g., backhaul 2153) between the first access node and the second access node, and wherein the second access node provides network access to a non-priority user equipment, UE (e.g., UE 1024),
the method comprising: the control node determining that a priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network (Cui taught [0049] Referring to FIG. 6, a mobile network 106 in accordance with various aspects and embodiments of the subject application can implement an emergency responders communication network (ERCN) that can carry emergency responder communications (e.g., ERCN traffic, such as ERCN data, ERCN messages, ERCN email, ERCN voice data, ERCN alerts, ERCN broadcast message and alerts, ERCN video data, etc.). This can be implemented, for example, using a network slice that provides emergency communication services for first responder entities, and devices used by first responder entities and their personnel. [0053] The network controller 605 (e.g., which can be one or more network controllers) can be operable to determine the presence of ERCN traffic on the network (e.g., using an ERCN traffic presence indicator 705)… To determine the presence of ERCN traffic (at a DU, for example), the network controller can examine incoming network traffic packets for the presence of an identifier, or indicator (provided by a DU, for example) that the network communication traffic comprises an emergency communication (e.g., emergency responder communication). [0054] Network controller 605 can obtain access to operator policies 710 related to the delivery of ERCN data, as well as other policies… This information can enable the network controller 605 to make decisions regarding which traffic to prioritize. For example, the ERCN's designated level of service (e.g., based on its bandwidth requirements, quality of service (QoS), class of service, etc.) can take priority over that of other data packets. The Examiner finds that Cui taught the control node (i.e., network controller) determining that a priority UE (i.e., emergency responder communications (ERCN) are high priority) is attempting to establish a connection with the network (i.e., presence of ERCN traffic is detected));
after determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network, the control node prioritizing at least the first link for the priority UE (Cui taught [0054] Network controller 605 can obtain access to operator policies 710 related to the delivery of ERCN data, as well as other policies… This information can enable the network controller 605 to make decisions regarding which traffic to prioritize. For example, the ERCN's designated level of service (e.g., based on its bandwidth requirements, quality of service (QoS), class of service, etc.) can take priority over that of other data packets… The prioritization of the traffic can inform the network controller in its performance of IAB link partitioning operations and also its performance of route optimization operations. [0056] FIG. 8 illustrates an example of an IAB partitioning operation (e.g., function, task, etc.) in which access/backhaul resources can be allocated differently (e.g., adjusted from normal delivery) to prioritize ERCN traffic. The Examiner finds that Cui taught after determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network (i.e., after detecting ERCN traffic), the control node prioritizing at least the first link for the priority UE (i.e., prioritize ERCN UE traffic using link partitioning and route optimization));
and the control node determining an alternate link to the second access node for use in carrying traffic to and/or from the non-priority UE to which the second access node provides access, wherein the alternate link does not include the first link between the control node and the first access node (Cui taught [0054] Still referring to FIG. 7, in example embodiments in accordance with aspects of the present application, the network controller 605 can obtain access to operator policies 710 related to the delivery of ERCN data, as well as other policies. The policies can be, for example, provisioning policies such as a subscriber level agreement (SLA), smart billing (dedicated services can be charged differently when a super slice is used, depending on the supply and demand of the super slice and its capacity and availability), related to not only the ERCN data, but other, regular non-ERCN data as well (e.g., other subscriber traffic (e.g., generated by customer entity or customer identity devices). This information can enable the network controller 605 to make decisions regarding which traffic to prioritize. For example, the ERCN's designated level of service (e.g., based on its bandwidth requirements, quality of service (QoS), class of service, etc.) can take priority over that of other data packets. As for non-ERCN traffic, packets associated with premium services, or premium level SLAs, can take priority over regular traffic that is non-premium services. These packets can have a different bandwidth, class of service, quality of service, etc., associated with them. The prioritization of the traffic can inform the network controller in its performance of IAB link partitioning operations and also its performance of route optimization operations. [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, backhaul traffic from relay DU 2123 (a3) to donor DU 2101 might have had its route changed from going through relay DU 2124 (a4) to relay DU 2125 (a5) if the network condition information regarding relay DU 2124 shows that its channel condition is poor. As another example, the network controller 605 can select a route that reduces the number of hops for traffic packets to get from a donor DU to a relay DU, by routing the ERCN traffic through 3 relay DUs versus, say 5 relay DUs. [0076] The facilitating the managing of the integrated access and backhaul link can comprise facilitating re-routing a communication packet of the emergency communication from a first communication link (e.g., access link 220) to a second communication link (backhaul link 215) of the integrated access and backhaul link, based on the network condition. The network condition can comprise a first link condition associated with the access communication link and a second link condition associated with the backhaul communication link. [0077] The method can further comprise determining, by the network controller device, a path to route the emergency communication. The determining the path can be based on a number of intervening network node devices (e.g., hops) between the first network node device and a destination device. The Examiner finds that Cui taught the control node determining an alternate link to the second access node for use in carrying traffic to and/or from the non-priority UE to which the second access node provides access (e.g., non-ERCN, non-priority UE has its traffic routed through poor transmission quality channel via DU 2124 (a4) as an alternative to being routed through the better transmission quality channel via DU 2125 (a5) used for priority ERCN UE traffic), wherein the alternate link does not include the first link between the control node and the first access node (e.g., the link via DU 2124 (a4) does not include relay DU 2125 (a5). The Examiner refers to MPEP 2112 and notes: the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. The Examiner further refers to MPEP 2131.02(III) and notes that a generic disclosure will anticipate a claimed species covered by that disclosure when the species can be ‘at once envisaged’ from the disclosure. These principles form the basis for the present anticipation rejection. Upon considering the plain meaning of the term “prioritize,” which is to designate or treat (something) as more important than other things1, prioritizing does not apply to a situation in which things are treated the same. Upon reading Cui in whole, and considering Cui’s discussion of route optimization and prioritization of ERCN traffic as a whole, the Examiner finds that Cui implies and that a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination. Cui describes non-ERCN devices on the network being joined by ERCN devices during an emergency situation (see [0049] and [0053]). Cui describes obtaining ERCN and non-ERCN policies concerning level of service and prioritization (see [0054]). Cui describes that prioritization based on these policies (both ERCN and non-ERCN) informs the controller’s route optimization operations (see [0054]). Cui describes route optimization that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic (see [0059]). Cui’s description of route optimization is not limited to rerouting priority ERCN traffic but instead diverting or rerouting ERCN traffic is merely given as an example of prioritizing ERCN traffic in [0059]. The fact that this is an example implies that other means to prioritization are encompassed by Cui’s disclosure. And by definition, the ERCN traffic cannot be said to be “prioritized” unless it is designated or treated as more important than other things. If the non-ERCN traffic were left to be routed on the same routes as the ERCN traffic then the ERCN traffic could not be said to have been prioritized over the non-ERCN traffic. Accordingly, Cui implies that “prioritizing” ERCN traffic involves the non-priority non-ERCN traffic being relegated to the poorer quality routes. In addition, Cui’s description can be considered as a generic disclosure that anticipates a claimed species covered by that disclosure when the species can be ‘at once envisaged’ from the disclosure. Cui describes the genus of route optimization that prioritizes ERCN traffic. The species within that genus includes (A) routing priority ERCN traffic along better routes and (B) routing non-priority non-ERCN traffic along poorer routes. Cui’s explicitly disclosure of species (A) framed as an example of the genus (prioritized route optimization) is a situation where “A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination," Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381. In Kennametal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s anticipation rejection where the Board found that “The combination of one of five metals with one of three coatings leads to only fifteen possibilities, which, according to the Board, was a sufficiently definite and limited class so that each member of the class was anticipated.” In Kennametal, the reference’s genus had 15 combination. Cui’s genus has only 4 combinations from the 2 types of devices (priority and non-priority) routed over 2 types of links (poor channel quality and good channel quality). And in Cui, only 2 of the combinations within the Genus involve “prioritizing” ERCN traffic. Cui’s description of the genus having 2 species and an example of species A causes the reader to at once envisage species B. In Kennametal, the Federal Circuit looked to Wrigley (683 F.3d at 1361) and noted: the question for the purposes of anticipation is “whether the number of categories and components” taught in [the reference] is so large that the combination of [the claimed invention] ‘would not be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” The Federal Circuit found that the 15 combinations at issue in Kennametal were not so large. Here, there are only 4 combinations and only 2 which make sense. The Examiner finds that the Federal Circuits standard of anticipation given in Kennametal also applies here by the similar reasoning. Especially considering that Route Optimization itself is well known within the art of computer networking2, as compared to Kennametal where combining ruthenium binders with PVD coatings was not conventional. Reading Cui’s disclosure as a whole, a person of skill in the art would at once envisage the following (as discussed in the previous rejection and just above in this rejection): Cui taught the control node determining an alternate link to the second access node for use in carrying traffic to and/or from the non-priority UE to which the second access node provides access (e.g., non-ERCN, non-priority UE has its traffic routed through poor transmission quality channel via DU 2124 (a4) as an alternative to being routed through the better transmission quality channel via DU 2125 (a5) used for priority ERCN UE traffic), wherein the alternate link does not include the first link between the control node and the first access node (e.g., the link via DU 2124 (a4) does not include relay DU 2125 (a5). Indeed, this must be the case given that the non-ERCN traffic cannot be treated/routed the same as ERCN traffic, otherwise the ERCN traffic could not be said to be prioritized by definition).
Cui taught the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. While Cui failed to explicitly teach, Cui suggested that “the alternate link does not include radio resources reserved for the priority UE.” Cui describes non-ERCN devices on the network being joined by ERCN devices during an emergency situation (see [0049] and [0053]). Cui describes obtaining ERCN and non-ERCN policies concerning level of service and prioritization (see [0054]). Cui describes that prioritization based on these policies (both ERCN and non-ERCN) informs the controller’s route optimization operations (see [0054]). Cui describes route optimization that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic (see [0059]). Cui’s description of route optimization is not limited to rerouting priority ERCN traffic but instead diverting or rerouting ERCN traffic is merely given as an example of prioritizing ERCN traffic in [0059]. The fact that this is an example implies that other means to prioritization are encompassed by Cui’s disclosure. And by definition, the ERCN traffic cannot be said to be “prioritized” unless it is designated or treated as more important than other things. If the non-ERCN traffic were left to be routed on the same routes as the ERCN traffic then the ERCN traffic could not be said to have been prioritized over the non-ERCN traffic. Accordingly, Cui implies that “prioritizing” ERCN traffic involves the non-priority non-ERCN traffic being relegated to the poorer quality routes.
In Cui, non-ERCN, non-priority UE has its traffic routed through poor transmission quality channel via DU 2124 (a4) as an alternative to being routed through the better transmission quality channel via DU 2125 (a5) used for priority ERCN UE traffic), wherein the alternate link does not include the first link between the control node and the first access node (e.g., the link via DU 2124 (a4) does not include relay DU 2125 (a5). Indeed, this must be the case given that the non-ERCN traffic cannot be treated/routed the same as ERCN traffic, otherwise the ERCN traffic could not be said to be prioritized by definition.
While Cui does not explicitly state that “the alternate link does not include radio resources reserved for the priority UE” the fact that it is a different link (e.g., a4 vs a5) does suggest this because they are two different channels which would have difference resources (e.g., time and frequency resourcs). That is, the poor transmission quality channel via DU 2124 (a4), which is an alternative to being routed through the better transmission quality channel via DU 2125 (a5) that is used for priority ERCN UE traffic, being different channels would have different and separate time and frequency radio resources such that “the alternate link does not include radio resources reserved for the priority UE”.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
further comprising: the control node generating a packet comprising user data for the non-priority UE; the control node determining that the first link does not have available resources for carrying the packet; and as a result of the control node determining that the first link does not have available resources for carrying the packet comprising the user data for the non-priority UE, the control node transmitting the packet to the second access node via the alternate link, wherein transmitting the packet to the second access node via the alternate link comprises: the control node buffering the packet at least until the occurrence of a period of time during which the control node does not have the opportunity to transmit data to first access node via the first link; and during the period of time, transmitting the data to the second access node via the alternate link (Cui taught [0051] an SDN controller can provide for the operations of 1) access/backhaul ( e.g., IAB) partitioning and 2) route optimization based on, for example, an ERCN event (which generates ERCN traffic), operator policies, and network conditions. [0054] the ERCN's designated level of service (e.g., based on its bandwidth requirements, quality of service (QoS), class of service, etc.) can take priority over that of other data packets... The prioritization of the traffic can inform the network controller in its performance of IAB link partitioning operations and also its performance of route optimization operations (described further below). [0055] The network conditions data 715 can comprise the access/backhaul partition (e.g., 50 Mhz for access transmissions, 50 Mhz for backhaul transmissions), the current access load (e.g., 40%), the wireless backhaul link between a donor DU and relay DUs (e.g., al-A from FIG. 6 describes the route between relay DU al and donor DU A. The network conditions data 715 can comprise the backhaul characteristics, for example, the type of access (e.g., fiber, l0G, etc.), the bandwidth of the backhaul link (e.g., 50 Mhz, 20 Mhz, etc.). [0058] A scheduler can, for example, be operable to determine resource assignments for transmissions between UEs and DUs, and between the donor DU and the relay DU. The scheduler can assign network resources based upon numerous criteria ( e.g., base station throughput, user latency, amount of packets waiting at buffer, fairness, etc.). Depending on factors and conditions (e.g., condition of the channels, number of DUs, number of UEs in a cell, access utilization, backhaul utilization, etc.), the schedulers of the DUs can be operative to select from a variety of multiplexing schemes that can integrate the transmission of the backhaul links and access links. [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.). The Examiner finds that Cui taught the control node generating a packet comprising user data for the non-priority UE (i.e., the scheduler of the network controller handling non-ERCN user equipment traffic); the control node determining that the first link does not have available resources for carrying the packet (i.e., the scheduler assigns network resources based upon number criteria including the channel conditions); and as a result of the control node determining that the first link does not have available resources for carrying the packet comprising the user data for the non-priority UE, the control node transmitting the packet to the second access node via the alternate link (i.e., route optimization of ERCN and non-ERCN traffic involves diverting ECRN traffic away from poor quality routes while non-ECRN traffic is not), wherein transmitting the packet to the second access node via the alternate link comprises: the control node buffering the packet (i.e., the scheduler buffering packets waiting for transmission) at least until the occurrence of a period of time during which the control node does not have the opportunity to transmit data to first access node via the first link (i.e., according to a selected multiplexing scheme); and during the period of time, transmitting the data to the second access node via the alternate link (i.e., the buffered packets waiting to be transmitted are transmitted according to the multiplexing scheme selected according to the channel conditions)).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
further comprising the second access node prioritizing the second link between the second access node and the first access node for the priority UE (Cui taught [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, backhaul traffic from relay DU 2123 (a3) to donor DU 2101 might have had its route changed from going through relay DU 2124 (a4) to relay DU 2125 (a5) if the network condition information regarding relay DU 2124 shows that its channel condition is poor. As another example, the network controller 605 can select a route that reduces the number of hops for traffic packets to get from a donor DU to a relay DU, by routing the ERCN traffic through 3 relay DUs versus, say 5 relay DUs.).
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Cui taught:
The method of claim 3 (see rejection above),
further comprising: the second access node receiving data transmitted by the non-priority UE; the second access node determining that the second link between the second access node and the first access node does not have available resources for carrying the data transmitted by the non-priority UE; and as a result of the second access node determining that the second link between the second access node and the first access node does not have available resources for carrying the data transmitted by the non-priority UE, the second access node transmitting the data to the control node via the alternate link, wherein transmitting the data to the control node via the alternate link comprises: the second access node buffering the data at least until the occurrence of a period of time during which the second access node does not have the opportunity to transmit data to first access node via the second link; and during the period of time, transmitting the data to the control node via the alternate link (Cui taught [0050] there is provided a network controller that enables the dynamic optimization of access/backhaul partitioning in an IAB link, when triggered by an ERCN event, as well as the dynamic backhaul routing optimization for ERCN data. These operations can be implemented with centralized, distributed, or a hybrid control entity. [0051] an SDN controller can provide for the operations of 1) access/backhaul ( e.g., IAB) partitioning and 2) route optimization based on, for example, an ERCN event (which generates ERCN traffic), operator policies, and network conditions. [0054] the ERCN's designated level of service (e.g., based on its bandwidth requirements, quality of service (QoS), class of service, etc.) can take priority over that of other data packets... The prioritization of the traffic can inform the network controller in its performance of IAB link partitioning operations and also its performance of route optimization operations (described further below). [0055] The network conditions data 715 can comprise the access/backhaul partition (e.g., 50 Mhz for access transmissions, 50 Mhz for backhaul transmissions), the current access load (e.g., 40%), the wireless backhaul link between a donor DU and relay DUs (e.g., al-A from FIG. 6 describes the route between relay DU al and donor DU A. The network conditions data 715 can comprise the backhaul characteristics, for example, the type of access (e.g., fiber, l0G, etc.), the bandwidth of the backhaul link (e.g., 50 Mhz, 20 Mhz, etc.). [0058] A scheduler can, for example, be operable to determine resource assignments for transmissions between UEs and DUs, and between the donor DU and the relay DU. The scheduler can assign network resources based upon numerous criteria ( e.g., base station throughput, user latency, amount of packets waiting at buffer, fairness, etc.). Depending on factors and conditions (e.g., condition of the channels, number of DUs, number of UEs in a cell, access utilization, backhaul utilization, etc.), the schedulers of the DUs can be operative to select from a variety of multiplexing schemes that can integrate the transmission of the backhaul links and access links. [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.)).
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
further comprising: the second access node determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network via the second access node; and after determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish the connection, the second access node freeing resources and allocating the freed resources to the priority UE, wherein freeing resources comprises the second access node clearing from a transmit buffer for the second link between the second access node and the first access node data that was received from the non-priority UE or prepared for transmitting to the non-priority UE, thereby freeing resources for the priority UE (Cui taught [0050] a network controller that enables the dynamic optimization of access/backhaul partitioning in an IAB link, when triggered by an ERCN event, as well as the dynamic backhaul routing optimization for ERCN data. [0058] A scheduler can, for example, be operable to determine resource assignments for transmissions between UEs and DUs, and between the donor DU and the relay DU. The scheduler can assign network resources based upon numerous criteria (e.g., base station throughput, user latency, amount of packets waiting at buffer, fairness, etc.). Depending on factors and conditions (e.g., condition of the channels, number of DUs, number of UEs in a cell, access utilization, backhaul utilization, etc.), the schedulers of the DUs can be operative to select from a variety of multiplexing schemes that can integrate the transmission of the backhaul links and access links. [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, backhaul traffic from relay DU 2123 (a3) to donor DU 2101 might have had its route changed from going through relay DU 2124 (a4) to relay DU 2125 (a5) if the network condition information regarding relay DU 2124 shows that its channel condition is poor. As another example, the network controller 605 can select a route that reduces the number of hops for traffic packets to get from a donor DU to a relay DU, by routing the ERCN traffic through 3 relay DUs versus, say 5 relay DUs.).
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
further comprising: the first access node determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network; and after determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish the connection, the first access node freeing resources and allocating the freed resources to the priority UE (Cui taught [0050] a network controller that enables the dynamic optimization of access/backhaul partitioning in an IAB link, when triggered by an ERCN event, as well as the dynamic backhaul routing optimization for ERCN data. [0058] A scheduler can, for example, be operable to determine resource assignments for transmissions between UEs and DUs, and between the donor DU and the relay DU. The scheduler can assign network resources based upon numerous criteria (e.g., base station throughput, user latency, amount of packets waiting at buffer, fairness, etc.). Depending on factors and conditions (e.g., condition of the channels, number of DUs, number of UEs in a cell, access utilization, backhaul utilization, etc.), the schedulers of the DUs can be operative to select from a variety of multiplexing schemes that can integrate the transmission of the backhaul links and access links. [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, backhaul traffic from relay DU 2123 (a3) to donor DU 2101 might have had its route changed from going through relay DU 2124 (a4) to relay DU 2125 (a5) if the network condition information regarding relay DU 2124 shows that its channel condition is poor. As another example, the network controller 605 can select a route that reduces the number of hops for traffic packets to get from a donor DU to a relay DU, by routing the ERCN traffic through 3 relay DUs versus, say 5 relay DUs).
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
wherein the control node determines that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network by receiving, via the first link, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message transmitted by the priority UE (Cui taught [0032] a mobile network (e.g., wireless communications system 100) in which non-real-time control functions are centrally hosted (e.g., in a central unit (CU) 205) to direct transmissions across coverage areas, while real time functions are deployed at distributed units (DUs) that can manage the air interface resources between the DUs and UEs. In this RAN protocol architecture, which is native to the 3GPP specification and can be expected to be employed in the upcoming 5G RAN network [0047] the RRC layer. [0053] The network controller 605 (e.g., which can be one or more network controllers) can be operable to determine the presence of ERCN traffic on the network (e.g., using an ERCN traffic presence indicator 705)… The indicator (e.g., ERCN traffic presence indicator 705) can be a data element, a bit in a frame, sequence of characters, etc., that indicates whether the traffic at the DU relates to ERCN traffic. [0054] the ERCN's designated level of service (e.g., based on its bandwidth requirements, quality of service (QoS), class of service, etc.) can take priority over that of other data packets. As for non-ERCN traffic, The Examiner finds that Cui taught the control node determines that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network (i.e., detect the presence of ERCN) by receiving, via the first link, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message transmitted by the priority UE (i.e., the network in Cui is a network according to 3GPP specifications, which use RRC for connection establishment3)).
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
wherein the control node determines the alternate link to the second access node prior to the control node determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network, and the control node determines the alternate link to the second access node based on a predicted channel condition, a distribution of traffic in the network, and/or a traffic prediction for the priority UE (Cui taught [0055] As for non-ERCN traffic, packets associated with premium services, or premium level SLAs, can take priority over regular traffic that is non-premium services. These packets can have a different bandwidth, class of service, quality of service, etc., associated with them. The prioritization of the traffic can inform the network controller in its performance of IAB link partitioning operations and also its performance of route optimization operations (described further below). [0055] The network controller 605, in performing its IAB partitioning and route optimization functions, can receive input regarding network conditions ( e.g., network conditions data 715), and analyze the network condition information. The network conditions data 715 can comprise DU (e.g., TRP) information and dynamic conditions… The network conditions data 715 can comprise the access/backhaul partition (e.g., 50 Mhz for access transmissions, 50 Mhz for backhaul transmissions), the current access load (e.g., 40%). [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, backhaul traffic from relay DU 2123 (a3) to donor DU 2101 might have had its route changed from going through relay DU 2124 (a4) to relay DU 2125 (a5) if the network condition information regarding relay DU 2124 shows that its channel condition is poor. As another example, the network controller 605 can select a route that reduces the number of hops for traffic packets to get from a donor DU to a relay DU, by routing the ERCN traffic through 3 relay DUs versus, say 5 relay DUs. [0076] The facilitating the managing of the integrated access and backhaul link can comprise facilitating re-routing a communication packet of the emergency communication from a first communication link (e.g., access link 220) to a second communication link (backhaul link 215) of the integrated access and backhaul link, based on the network condition. The network condition can comprise a first link condition associated with the access communication link and a second link condition associated with the backhaul communication link. [0077] The method can further comprise determining, by the network controller device, a path to route the emergency communication. The determining the path can be based on a number of intervening network node devices (e.g., hops) between the first network node device and a destination device. The Examiner finds that Cui taught the control node determines the alternate link to the second access node prior to the control node determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network (i.e., the controller performs route optimization for priority communication whether its ERCN or priority non-ERCN and so would determine optimal routes for priority traffic prior to determining the presence of ERCN traffic. See the discussion of route optimization of non-ERCN traffic discussed above with respect to claim 1 because it applies to the rejection of claim 11 mutatis mutandis), and the control node determines the alternate link to the second access node based on a predicted channel condition, a distribution of traffic in the network, and/or a traffic prediction for the priority UE (i.e., based on the dynamic channel conditions of traffic in the network).).
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
further comprising: after determining that the priority UE is attempting to establish a connection, prioritizing the second link for the priority UE (Cui taught [0053] The network controller 605 (e.g., which can be one or more network controllers) can be operable to determine the presence of ERCN traffic on the network (e.g., using an ERCN traffic presence indicator 705). [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, backhaul traffic from relay DU 2123 (a3) to donor DU 2101 might have had its route changed from going through relay DU 2124 (a4) to relay DU 2125 (a5) if the network condition information regarding relay DU 2124 shows that its channel condition is poor. As another example, the network controller 605 can select a route that reduces the number of hops for traffic packets to get from a donor DU to a relay DU, by routing the ERCN traffic through 3 relay DUs versus, say 5 relay DUs. [0076] The facilitating the managing of the integrated access and backhaul link can comprise facilitating re-routing a communication packet of the emergency communication from a first communication link (e.g., access link 220) to a second communication link (backhaul link 215) of the integrated access and backhaul link, based on the network condition. The network condition can comprise a first link condition associated with the access communication link and a second link condition associated with the backhaul communication link. [0077] The method can further comprise determining, by the network controller device, a path to route the emergency communication. The determining the path can be based on a number of intervening network node devices (e.g., hops) between the first network node device and a destination device.).
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
further comprising: after the control node determines that a priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network, the control node transmitting to the first and/or second access node a message comprising an identifier identifying the priority UE and indicating that the identified UE is a priority UE (Cui taught [0053] The network controller 605 (e.g., which can be one or more network controllers) can be operable to determine the presence of ERCN traffic on the network (e.g., using an ERCN traffic presence indicator 705)… The indicator (e.g., ERCN traffic presence indicator 705) can be a data element, a bit in a frame, sequence of characters, etc., that indicates whether the traffic at the DU relates to ERCN traffic. [0054] the network controller 605 can obtain access to operator policies 710 related to the delivery of ERCN data, as well as other policies. The policies can be, for example, provisioning policies such as a subscriber level agreement (SLA), smart billing ( dedicated services can be charged differently when a super slice is used, depending on the supply and demand of the super slice and its capacity and availability), related to not only the ERCN data, but other, regular non-ERCN data as well… the ERCN's designated level of service (e.g., based on its bandwidth requirements, quality of service (QoS), class of service, etc.) can take priority over that of other data packets… These packets can have a different bandwidth, class of service, quality of service, etc., associated with them. The Examiner finds that Cui taught after the control node determines that a priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network (i.e., after detecting the presence of ERCN traffic), the control node transmitting to the first and/or second access node a message comprising an identifier identifying the priority UE and indicating that the identified UE is a priority UE (i.e., the messages for ERCN traffic have associated class of service and associated quality of service identifiers)).
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to claim 1 except certain steps are performed by the “second access node” rather than the “control node.” Cui taught [0050] a network controller that enables the dynamic optimization of access/backhaul partitioning in an IAB link, when triggered by an ERCN event, as well as the dynamic backhaul routing optimization for ERCN data. These operations can be implemented with centralized, distributed, or a hybrid control entity. In Cui, the second access node (e.g., relate distributed unit (DU) 2123) is a distributed control entity that implement the dynamic optimization and routing triggered by an ERCN event. Claim 15 is rejected for this reason along with the reasons given for claim 1.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and recites limitations similar to claim 2. Claim 16 is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 15 and claim 2.
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends on claim 15 and recites limitations similar to claim 7. Claim 18 is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 15 and claim 7.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends on claim 15 and recites limitations similar to claim 14 (e.g., “receiving a priority identifier from the control node” in claim 20 and “an identifier identifying the priority UE and indicating that the identified UE is a priority UE” in claim 14). Claim 20 is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 15 and claim 14.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites limitations similar to claim 15 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 29
Claim 27 recites limitations similar to claim 15 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 30
With respect to claim 30, Cui taught:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
further comprising: the control node generating a packet comprising user data for the non-priority UE;
the control node determining that the first link does not have available resources for carrying the packet;
and as a result of the control node determining that the first link does not have available resources for carrying the packet comprising the user data for the non-priority UE, the control node transmitting the packet to the second access node via the alternate link, wherein transmitting the packet to the second access node via the alternate link comprises: the control node determining the start of a period of time during which the first access node is in an off state; the control node buffering the packet at least until the start of the period of time during which the first access node is in the off state; and during the period of time during which the first access node is in the off state, transmitting the data to the second access node via the alternate link (Cui taught [0051] an SDN controller can provide for the operations of 1) access/backhaul ( e.g., IAB) partitioning and 2) route optimization based on, for example, an ERCN event (which generates ERCN traffic), operator policies, and network conditions. [0054] the ERCN's designated level of service (e.g., based on its bandwidth requirements, quality of service (QoS), class of service, etc.) can take priority over that of other data packets... The prioritization of the traffic can inform the network controller in its performance of IAB link partitioning operations and also its performance of route optimization operations (described further below). [0055] The network conditions data 715 can comprise the access/backhaul partition (e.g., 50 Mhz for access transmissions, 50 Mhz for backhaul transmissions), the current access load (e.g., 40%), the wireless backhaul link between a donor DU and relay DUs (e.g., al-A from FIG. 6 describes the route between relay DU al and donor DU A. The network conditions data 715 can comprise the backhaul characteristics, for example, the type of access (e.g., fiber, l0G, etc.), the bandwidth of the backhaul link (e.g., 50 Mhz, 20 Mhz, etc.). [0058] A scheduler can, for example, be operable to determine resource assignments for transmissions between UEs and DUs, and between the donor DU and the relay DU. The scheduler can assign network resources based upon numerous criteria ( e.g., base station throughput, user latency, amount of packets waiting at buffer, fairness, etc.). Depending on factors and conditions (e.g., condition of the channels, number of DUs, number of UEs in a cell, access utilization, backhaul utilization, etc.), the schedulers of the DUs can be operative to select from a variety of multiplexing schemes that can integrate the transmission of the backhaul links and access links. [0059] With respect to route optimization, the network controller 605 can facilitate the routing of data through DUs in a manner that prioritizes the delivery of ERCN traffic. As an example, it might divert traffic away from a relay DU that has, for example, poorer transmission channel quality (e.g., obstructed transmissions, etc.). The Examiner finds that Cui taught the control node generating a packet comprising user data for the non-priority UE (i.e., the scheduler of the network controller handling non-ERCN user equipment traffic); the control node determining that the first link does not have available resources for carrying the packet (i.e., the scheduler assigns network resources based upon number criteria including the channel conditions); and as a result of the control node determining that the first link does not have available resources for carrying the packet comprising the user data for the non-priority UE, the control node transmitting the packet to the second access node via the alternate link (i.e., route optimization of ERCN and non-ERCN traffic involves diverting ECRN traffic away from poor quality routes while non-ECRN traffic is not. Prioritization of ERCN traffic onto better routes means that non-priority non-ERCN traffic is relegated to poor quality routes. See further the discussion of claim 1 with respect to genus/species, Cui’s implicit disclosure, and what can be at once envisaged from Cui’s disclosure since that same discussion applies to Claim 30 mutatis mutandis), wherein transmitting the packet to the second access node via the alternate link comprises: the control node determining the start of a period of time during which the first access node is in an off state (i.e., the scheduler waiting for transmission is an off state); the control node buffering the packet (i.e., the scheduler buffering packets waiting for transmission) at least until the start of the period of time during which the first access node is in the off state (i.e., it is off and waiting to transmit according to a selected multiplexing scheme); and during the period of time, during which the first access node is in the off state, transmitting the data to the second access node via the alternate link (i.e., the buffered packets waiting to be transmitted are transmitted according to the multiplexing scheme selected according to the channel conditions, which can be diverted to an alternate route based on route optimization for the prioritization of ERCN traffic. See also discussion of Cui’s implicit disclosure of route optimization with respect to claim 1 as it applies here mutatis mutandis)).
CLAIM 22
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of R2-181215.
Claim 22
With respect to claim 22, Cui taught:
The method of claim 15 (see rejection above),
wherein the second access node determines that a priority UE is attempting to establish a connection with the network via the second access node by receiving, via a network traffic, a priority traffic indicator transmitted by the priority UE and determining that the priority traffic indicator is reserved for priority UEs or determining that the communication network used to transmit traffic is reserved for priority UEs (Cui taught [0049] a mobile network 106 in accordance with various aspects and embodiments of the subject application can implement an emergency responders communication network (ERCN) that can carry emergency responder communications (e.g., ERCN traffic, such as ERCN data, ERCN messages, ERCN email, ERCN voice data, ERCN alerts, ERCN broadcast message and alerts, ERCN video data, etc.). This can be implemented, for example, using a network slice that provides emergency communication services for first responder entities, and devices used by first responder entities and their personnel. [0053] the network controller can examine incoming network traffic packets for the presence of an identifier, or indicator (provided by a DU, for example) that the network communication traffic comprises an emergency communication (e.g., emergency responder communication). The indicator (e.g., ERCN traffic presence indicator 705) can be a data element, a bit in a frame, sequence of characters, etc., that indicates whether the traffic at the DU relates to ERCN traffic. An indicator that identifies traffic as ERCN traffic, can be, for numeric. For example, a "0" in the frame corresponding to ERCN traffic indication can indicate the absence of ERCN traffic. A "1" can mean that the ERCN traffic is the only traffic on the network, or that particular segment of the network. A "2" value can indicate the presence of both ERCN and regular services on the network.).
While Cui taught the limitations of claim 22 above, Cui did not explicitly teach that the priority traffic indicator was received “via a Physical Random Access Channel, PRACH,” that it is in “a random access preamble,” or that it was transmitted using “a PRACH occasion.”
With respect to claim 22, R2-1808834 taught:
prioritized random access via RACH using a random access preamble in a PRACH occasion (R2-1808834 taught [p.1] The Random Access procedure on an SCell other than PSCell shall only be initiated by a PDCCH order with ra-PreambleIndex different from 0b000000… RRC configures the following parameters for the Random Access procedure: - prach-ConfigIndex: the available set of PRACH occasions for the transmission of the Random Access Preamble … - powerRampingStepHighPriority: the power-ramping factor in case of differentiated Random Access procedure; - scalingFactorBI: a scaling factor for differentiated Random Access procedure; [p.3] 3> set the PREAMBLE_POWER_RAMPING_STEP to powerRampingStepHighPriority; … 3> set the SCALING_FACTOR_BI to scalingFactorBI; … instruct the physical layer to transmit the Random Access Preamble using the selected PRACH)
The Examiner finds that 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. Specifically, it would be obvious to modify Cui’s technique for dynamic adjustment of IAB for emergency communication to include the priority traffic indicator in a random access preamble to achieve claim 22 in order to prioritize the initial random access procedure for emergency communications otherwise prioritized random access for emergency communications would not be supported as stated in R2-1808834 “consequences if not approved.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prioritize random access of emergency communications so that devices in the hands of first responders can more effectively provide public safety services (see Cui [0049]). The Examiner further finds that there was a reasonable expectation of success given that both Cui and R2-1808834 work within 3GPP standards.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The claim rejections under §102 are withdrawn and a new ground of rejection under §102 is given above.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Davis whose telephone number is 703-756-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 11AM to 7PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3795. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/C.R.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 https://www.google.com/search?q=define+prioritize
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Resource_Control