DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-3, 6-16, 18-20 are pending wherein claims 1 and 15 are in independent form.
4. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
5. Claims 4-5 and 17 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed on 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons set forth below.
7. On page 9 of the remarks, applicant argues, “It is respectfully submitted that the previous response recites flow control information reflecting the congestion status between the first node and the second node is transmitted to the donor CU, rather than that the first node transmits flow control information between the first node and the second node to the donor CU. Nowhere in the previous response is it stated that "the first node transmits flow control information between itself and its child nodes to the donor CU."
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Tesanovic discloses that the flow control feedback is sent to the CU for centralized load balancing (US 20230284083, Par 0199, GB 2012202.4, Pg. 14, Line 22-23). Moreover, Tesanovic discloses that the flow control feedback is shared with the CU (Par 0147-0148, Par 0181, Par 0216; GB 2012202.4, Pg. 10, Line 24-25, Line 32). Flow control feedback is sent to the CU in response to the polling by the CU (Par 0165, GB 2012202.4, Pg. 12, Line 12-14; Pg. 16, Line 15-16, Claim 10).
8. On page 10 of the remarks, applicant argues, “It is respectfully submitted that Tesanovic GB only mentions that "the first node performs load balancing" and does not disclose that "the first node feeds back flow control information to the CU." That is, [0199] of Tesanovic is not supported by Tesanovic GB, which is the priority application of Tesanovic.”
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Tesanovic discloses that the flow control feedback is sent to the CU for centralized load balancing (US 20230284083, Par 0199, GB 2012202.4, Pg. 14, Line 22-23).
9. On page 11 of the remarks, applicant argues, “Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Tesanovic fails to disclose "wherein the congestion status information comprises: a Next-Hop BAP Address identifying the link and a BH RLC CH ID," recited in Applicant's claim 1.”
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Tesanovic discloses that flow control feedback includes a next hop BAP address as the identifier of a link (Par 0123—"The ID of the link could be the universal (e.g. unique per Donor-DU, or per Donor-CU) backhaul link identifier; it could also be a local link identifier such as next hop node id together with the present node id (BAP address/IP address)”) (Par 0121-0123). Tesanovic also discloses that the flow control feedback includes the BH RLC Channel ID (Fig. 2, Par 0114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tesanovic (US 20230284083, hereinafter referred to as Tesanovic).
Re claim 1, Tesanovic teaches a signal transmission and reception apparatus, applicable in an integrated access and backhaul (IAB)-node (child IAB node/second node) (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Par 0106-0110), comprising:
(i) a transmitter (603, Fig. 6, Par 0200-0201), configured to transmit a congestion reporting message (flow control feedback) to a donor central unit of the integrated access and backhaul node (IAB-donor CU) (First/Parent/donor IAB node), the congestion reporting message being used to indicate a load status of a communication link of the integrated access and backhaul node (buffer status, status of a link) (Fig. 2-5, Par 0114-0118, Par 0121-0135, Par 0137-0148, Par 0181-0184, Par 0191, Par 0199),
(ii) wherein the congestion reporting message comprises an information element (IE) used for carrying a list of congestion status information (flow control feedback, Fig. 2), a granularity of the congestion status information being per backhaul radio link control channel (per backhaul (BH) channel), and/or per routing ID (Per routing ID), and/or per communication link (per specific link ID) (Fig. 2-3, Par 0114-0118, Par 0121-0135, Par 0137-0145), and
(iii) wherein the congestion status information comprises: a Next-Hop BAP Address identifying the link and a BH RLC CH ID (Fig. 2, Par 0114, Par 0121-0123 ---"The ID of the link could be the universal (e.g. unique per Donor-DU, or per Donor-CU) backhaul link identifier; it could also be a local link identifier such as next hop node id together with the present node id (BAP address/IP address)”.
Re claims 2, 16, Tesanovic teaches that contents of the congestion reporting message comprise: a buffer size (buffer fill level); and/or a buffer occupation (buffer fill level); and/or an available buffer size (remaining buffer space); and/or an available data rate (desired data rate); and/or information indicating that congestion occurs in the communication link (status of a link) (Fig. 2, Par 0121-0135).
Re claims 6, 19, Tesanovic teaches a receiver (605, Fig. 6) configured to receive polling information from the donor central unit (I[AB-donor CU) (reporting based on polling), wherein when the receiver receives the polling information, or when a predetermined condition of the integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node is satisfied, the integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node transmits the congestion reporting message (flow control feedback) (Fig. 2, Fig. 4-5, Par 0113, Par 0153-0162, Par 0165-0170, Par 0183, Par 0191).
Re claim 7, Tesanovic teaches that the polling information comprises a granularity of congestion status information in the congestion reporting message, and/or a backhaul radio link control (BH RLC) channel ID, and/or a routing ID, and/or a link ID in the congestion status information (Fig. 2, Fig. 4-5, Par 0113-0114, Par 0136-0145, Par 0163-0165, Par 0183-0185, Par 0191, Par 0216).
Re claim 8, Tesanovic teaches that the predetermined condition comprises that, a buffer load to which the granularity of the congestion status information in the congestion reporting message corresponds exceeds a first threshold and continues for a first period of time (; or in a second period of time, the number of instances of transmitted backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) control protocol sublayer flow control feedback due to a buffer load of the integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node for the same identifier exceeding a second threshold exceeds a third threshold (Par 0161 ---" this may also take into account the time elapsed since the most recent report was sent to a parent node, for example by comparing that time to a certain pre-defined threshold. For example, reporting may be triggered if more than x ms have lapsed since the last report was sent, and optionally if one or more other conditions are satisfied (e.g. if the actual or estimated buffer occupancy has changed by m %)”) (Par 0153-0165).
Re claims 9, 20, Tesanovic teaches a receiver, configured to receive congestion reporting configuration information transmitted by the donor central unit (AB-donor CU (receiving triggering conditions from the donor CU), the congestion reporting configuration information being used to configure: a parameter needed in a predetermined condition for determining, by the integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, an occasion of transmitting the congestion reporting message (triggering conditions to provide flow control feedback), and/or a parameter needed or configuration needed by the integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node in transmitting the congestion reporting message (triggering conditions to provide flow control feedback) (Fig. 2-5, Par 0114-0118, Par 0153-0163).
Re claim 15, Tesanovic teaches signal transmission and reception apparatus, applicable in an IAB-donor-CU (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Par 0106-0110, Par 0200-0201) comprising:
(i) a receiver (605), configured to receive a congestion reporting message (flow control feedback) transmitted by an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (child IAB node/second node), the congestion reporting message being used to indicate a load status of a communication link of the integrated access and backhaul node (buffer status, status of a link) (Fig. 2-6, Par 0114-0118, Par 0121-0135, Par 0137-0148, Par 0181-0184, Par 0191, Par 0199-0201).
(ii) wherein the congestion reporting message comprises an information element (IE) used for carrying a list of congestion status information (flow control feedback, Fig. 2), a granularity of the congestion status information being per backhaul radio link control channel (per backhaul (BH) channel), and/or per routing ID (Per routing ID), and/or per communication link (per specific link ID) (Fig. 2-3, Par 0114-0118, Par 0121-0135, Par 0137-0145), and
(iii) wherein the congestion status information comprises: a Next-Hop BAP Address identifying the link and a BH RLC CH ID (Fig. 2, Par 0114, Par 0121-0123 ---"The ID of the link could be the universal (e.g. unique per Donor-DU, or per Donor-CU) backhaul link identifier; it could also be a local link identifier such as next hop node id together with the present node id (BAP address/IP address)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesanovic as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li et al (WO 2022087088 A1, hereinafter referred to as Li).
Re claim 3, Tesanovic does not explicitly disclose that the transmitter is further configured to transmit congestion clearance indication information to the donor central unit (AB-donor CU), the congestion clearance indication information being used to indicate that the communication link of the integrated access and backhaul node is in an uncongested state.
Li teaches that the transmitter is further configured to transmit congestion clearance indication information to the donor central unit (AB-donor CU), the congestion clearance indication information being used to indicate that the communication link of the integrated access and backhaul node is in an uncongested state (flow control leaving feedback) (Fig. 1-2, Par 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tesanovic by including the step that the transmitter is further configured to transmit congestion clearance indication information to the donor central unit (AB-donor CU), the congestion clearance indication information being used to indicate that the communication link of the integrated access and backhaul node is in an uncongested state, as taught by Li for the purpose of providing IAB network topology -wide fairness and downstream hop-by-hop flow control enhancement for long-term congestion scenario to shorten the congestion period and prevent potential packet drop at a congested IAB node, as taught by Li (Par 0060).
14. Claims 10-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesanovic as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hong (US 20210127293 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hong).
Re claim 10, Tesanovic does not explicitly disclose that the congestion reporting configuration information is received via F1 application protocol signaling.
Hong teaches that the congestion reporting configuration information is received via F1 application protocol signaling (condition/trigger information for status reporting) (Par 0228-0241, Par 0284).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tesanovic by including the step that the congestion reporting configuration information is received via F1 application protocol signaling, as taught by Hong for the purpose of “preventing data from being lost due to data increasing in a relay node (an IAB node)”, as taught by Hong (Par 0013).
Re claim 11, Tesanovic does not explicitly disclose that the congestion reporting message is transmitted via F1 application protocol signaling.
Hong teaches that the congestion reporting message is transmitted via F1 application protocol signaling (F1AP message including buffer status information) (Par 0010-0012, Par 0156-0157, Par 0169, Par 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tesanovic by including the step that the congestion reporting message is transmitted via F1 application protocol signaling, as taught by Hong for the purpose of “preventing data from being lost due to data increasing in a relay node (an IAB node)”, as taught by Hong (Par 0013).
Re claim 12, Tesanovic does not explicitly disclose that the congestion reporting message is transmitted in gNB-DU Status Indication procedure.
Hong teaches that the congestion reporting message is transmitted in gNB-DU Status Indication procedure (DU buffer size information/downlink buffer status information) (Par 0010-0012, Par 0156-0160, Par 0169- 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tesanovic by including the step that the congestion reporting message is transmitted in gNB-DU Status Indication procedure, as taught by Hong for the purpose of “preventing data from being lost due to data increasing in a relay node (an IAB node)”, as taught by Hong (Par 0013).
Re claim 13, Tesanovic does not explicitly disclose that for a load status of an uplink, the congestion reporting message is carried in a radio resource control (RRC) message.
Hong teaches that for a load status of an uplink (uplink buffer status), the congestion reporting message is carried in a radio resource control (RRC) message (buffer status information transmitted through RRC message) (Par 0151-0155, Par 0241, Par 0297).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tesanovic by including the step that for a load status of an uplink, the congestion reporting message is carried in a radio resource control (RRC) message, as taught by Hong for the purpose of “preventing data from being lost due to data increasing in a relay node (an IAB node)”, as taught by Hong (Par 0013).
Re claim 14, Tesanovic does not explicitly disclose that the congestion reporting configuration information is received via dedicated signaling in an RRC message.
Hong teaches that the congestion reporting configuration information is received via dedicated signaling in an RRC message (condition information included in an RRC message) (Par 0228, Par 0284).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tesanovic by including the step that the congestion reporting configuration information is received via dedicated signaling in an RRC message, as taught by Hong for the purpose of “preventing data from being lost due to data increasing in a relay node (an IAB node)”, as taught by Hong (Par 0013).
Re claim 18, Tesanovic teaches that the granularity of the congestion status information is per backhaul radio link control (BH RLC) channel or per communication link (Per BH RLC channel ID, per specific link ID) (Fig. 2-3, Par 0114-0118, Par 0121-0135, Par 0137-0145).
Tesanovic does not explicitly disclose that the congestion status information further comprises information used for indicating uplink or downlink.
Hong teaches that the congestion status information further comprises information used for indicating uplink or downlink (Fig. 14-15, Par 0151-0160, Par 0165-0167, Par 0169-0173, Par 0222, Par 0242-0257).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tesanovic by including the step the congestion status information further comprises information used for indicating uplink or downlink, as taught by Hong for the purpose of “preventing data from being lost due to data increasing in a relay node (an IAB node)”, as taught by Hong (Par 0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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.
/HARUN CHOWDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights