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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, the examiner notes that for compact prosecution all limitations have been addressed however the BRI of the claims do not include intended uses such as:
“configured by an IAB donor for the first node”. Claim 1 is limited in scope to the “apparatus, configured in a first node” as explicitly recited on line 1. Therefore actions performed by an IAB donor for the first node are considered intended uses outside the scope of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 12-13 recite the limitation “a BH RLC channel” then line 14 again recites “a BH RLC channel”; and
Line 16 recites the limitation “a routing identity” then lines 17-18 again recite “a Lines 12-13 recite the limitation “a routing identity”. It is suggested that (in each case) the second “a” be changed to --the-- to maintain consistency with the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the local re-routing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the local re-routing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "routing reselection" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuo et al. (2023/0044810) hereinafter “Zhuo” and Samsung (“Discussion on local decision make for routing” / 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #107bis R2-1913810), hereinafter “Samsung”.
As to claim 1, (Currently Amended) A routing selection apparatus, configured in a first node (first IAB node), the apparatus comprising:
a receiver (inherent to 5G devices, see also [0041]: “a receiving unit, configured to receive first information from a second IAB node, where the first information indicates buffer statuses…”) confiqured to receive first flow control feedback (uplink flow feedback information) information from a third (second) node, the first flow control feedback information indicatinq that data conqestion (buffer % or size exceeds threshold) occurs in the third node (see [0041: “… in the second IAB node” and [0169]-[0180]); and
processor circuitry (inherent to 5G devices, see also [0041]: “… and a processing unit, configured to perform uplink flow control based on the first information“) configured to:
re-route (see [0033],[0034],[0046], [0191]):
a BAP packet intended to be mapped to a BH RLC (the M RLC CH) channel if the first flow control feedback information indicates that an available buffer size of a BH RLC channel is less than a first threshold [[confiqured by an IAB donor for the first node]] (see [0009], [0013],[0014],[0187]); or
a BAP packet whose BAP header includes a routing identity if the first flow control feedback information indicates that an available buffer size for a routing identity is less than a second threshold [[configured by an IAB donor for the first node]] (see [0183]).
In an analogous art, Samsung discloses wherein it was advantageous for the IAB donor node to configure the threshold in order to control rerouting. See section 2, Proposal 2: “the IAB donor CU can configure some conditions to trigger the local decision… threshold information for triggering local decision… ”. Also see section 3, proposal 2. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhuo such that the threshold information is configured by the IAB donor as taught by Samsung for the purpose of enabling the donor to make the decisions.
As to claim 4, (Original) The combination of Zhuo and Samsung discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, Zhuo discloses wherein the local re-routing comprises a route reselection, or selecting a route that is different from the routing ID in a BAP header. (See [0046] “… select a logical channel LCH that corresponds to a BAP routing identifier other than the N BAP routing identifiers and/or an LCH that corresponds to an RLC CH other than the M RLC CHs when assembling an uplink data packet”).
As to claim 6, (Currently Amended) The combination of Zhuo and Samsung discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, Zhuo discloses, further comprising a receiver configured to receive the first flow control feedback information from the third node, wherein the processor circuitry performs local re-routing when the first flow control feedback information is received from the third node comprises that:
the processor circuitry reselects a route for a BAP packet intended to be mapped to a BH RLC channel if the first flow control feedback information indicates that an available buffer size of the BH RLC channel is less than a first threshold (See [0046] “… select a logical channel LCH and/or an LCH that corresponds to an RLC CH other than the M RLC CHs when assembling an uplink data packet”); and/or
the processor circuitry reselects a route for a BAP packet containing a routing identity in a BAP header if the first flow control feedback information indicates that an available buffer size for the routing identity is less than a second threshold (See [0046] “… select a logical channel LCH that corresponds to a BAP routing identifier other than the N BAP routing identifiers … when assembling an uplink data packet”).
As to claim 9, (Previously Presented) The combination of Zhuo and Samsung discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, Zhuo discloses, wherein after the processor circuitry performs routing reselection when the first flow control feedback information is received, the processor circuitry stops the routing reselection for an original route if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied that:
a timer started when the data congestion occurs expires (see [0015]); and
second flow control feedback information is received (see [0015]), and the second flow control feedback information indicates that no data congestion occurs in the original route.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649