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 .
Status
This application claims priority from Great Britain patent application GB2016380.4 filed October 15, 2020, and PCT application PCT/KR2021/014335 filed October 15, 2021.
Claims 16-19, 21-27, 29-30 are currently pending in the application.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 30 have been amended.
Claims 20 and 28 have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed on January 23, 2026 complies with requirements and have been entered. The Applicant’s specification supports “the path being changed from a routing indicated by a central unit (CU) of the multi-hop network” in at least para. [0050] of the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-19, 21-27, 29-30 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. US 20230044810 to Yibin Zhuo et al. (hereinafter Zhuo) in view of US Pat. Pub. US 20210051512 to Karl Georg Hampel et al. (hereinafter Hampel).
Regarding claim 16, Zhuo teaches A method performed by a first node operating in a multi-hop network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a second node, a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) packet; (Zhuo Fig. 1 illustrates five IAB nodes in a multi-hop network taught in para. [0095], which is capable of implementing a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) layer as taught in para. [0096]:
PNG
media_image1.png
652
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
determining whether a quality of service (QoS) profile is guaranteed; (Zhuo para. [0128] teaches that the BAP layer has the capability of adding to the data packet identification information related to a QoS requirement that can be identified by the wireless backhaul node for performing QoS mapping.)
in response to the QoS profile being guaranteed, determining a path for transmitting the BAP packet, the path being changed from a routing indicated by a central unit (CU) of the multi-hop network; (Zhuo para. [0128] teaches “QoS mapping for a data packet by adding data packet type indication information to the data packet”, and “sending flow control feedback information to a node that has a flow control capability”. Zhuo para. [0213] teaches that optionally, the uplink flow control feedback capability of each IAB node may be enabled by a “donor CU or the donor DU”, which Examiner maps to “in response to the QoS profile being guaranteed, determining a path for transmitting the BAP packet”. Zhuo para. [0219] teaches that the BAP routing identifiers may be “preconfigured by the IAB donor (for example, the donor CU)”. The uplink flow control enables another IAB node to perform a rerouting).
modifying a BAP header associated with the path of the BAP packet; (Zhuo para. [0280]-[0281] teaches that a first IAB node “may further modify routing information (namely, a BAP routing identifier) in a BAP header” after a radio link failure (RLF) occurs, and as shown in Fig. 6, a first IAB node (node 5) receives the RLF notification from a second IAB node (node 4) and para. [0211] the routing identifier can direct routing to avoid congestion between node 4 and node 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
633
1202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thereafter, the first IAB node (node 5) modifies the routing to drop either node 3 or node 2 based on the RLF notification.)
and
transmitting, to a third node, the BAP packet with the modified BAP header based on the determined path. (As shown in Fig. 6, above, Zhuo para. [0288] teaches that an RLF notification may be indicated in the BAP routing identifier, the first IAB node may perform accurate route adjust (reroute) of the uplink transmission of the uplink data that corresponds to the N BAP routing identifiers, so that congestion of the uplink data between node 4 and node 3 (described in para. [0259]) can be avoided. Therefore, to avoid node 3, the rerouting would direct transmitting to node 2, mapped to the ”third node.” As taught in para. [0281] the rerouted data sent to node 2 would have modified routing information with a replaced BAP routing identifier in the BAP header of the uplink data.)
Although Zhuo teaches a BAP routing and reducing data packet losses, Zhuo does NOT explicitly identify the data packets as “BAP packets”.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Hampel teaches “BAP packets”. Specifically, Hampel para. [0112] teaches “IAB-compatible packets routed through an BH RLC channel may have a BAP header including a routing identifier for the respective packet and may be referred to as a BAP packet.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Zhuo with Hampel and to substitute the packets identified as having a BAP header in Zhuo with the “BAP packets” of Hampel. Each of Zhuo and Hampel are in the field of 3GPP 5G wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhuo and Hampel in order to configure and handle forwarding of packets from different devices over the BAP layer as taught in Hampel para. [0006]-[0007].
Regarding claim 17, Zhuo teaches The method of claim 16, wherein the multi-hop network is an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, network. (Zhuo teaches in Fig. 1, and para. [0075], and para. [0090] that the IAB network shown in Fig. 1 supports multi-hop and multi-connectivity networking.)
Regarding claim 21, Zhuo teaches The method of claim 16, further comprising: transmitting, to the third node, feedback information associated with the determination of the path. (Zhuo teaches para. [0128] “sending flow control feedback information to a node that has a flow control capability”. Zhuo teaches para. [0128] “sending flow control feedback information to a node that has a flow control capability”. Zhuo para. [0169]-[0170] teaches that feedback information may be uplink flow control feedback information sent by “an IAB node to a parent node of the IAB node” that “one or more parent nodes” in an uplink is congested including “with different granularities”. The third node shown in Fig. 6 as node 2 is a parent node to both nodes 5 and node 4, therefore, according to Zhuo para. [0169]-[0170] the feedback information would flow to the third node identified as node 2 from node 5.)
Regarding claim 25, Zhuo teaches The method of claim 17 wherein the second node is a child node of the first node and the third node is a parent node of the first node. (Zhuo teaches in para. [0091] that each IAB node may be considered a child node (or a lower-level node) of the parent node of the IAB node, including uplink and downlink transmissions. Thus, as shown in Fig. 6, the third node (shown as node 2) is a parent node of both the first and second nodes (shown as nodes 4 and 5) in the uplink direction, and node 4 (the second node) is a child of node 5 (the first node) in the uplink direction.)
Regarding claim 26, Zhuo teaches A first node (Fig. 1) operating in a multi-hop network (Fig. 1 illustrates multi-hop nodes), the first node comprising:
one or more processor (Zhuo para [0069] teaches an IAB node includes a processor) configured to:
receive, from a second node (Zhuo teaches receiving IAB nodes that consider a neighboring node that provides a backhaul service as a parent node or a child node), a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) packet, determine whether a quality of service (QoS) profile is guaranteed, (Zhuo para. [0128] teaches “QoS mapping for a data packet by adding data packet type indication information to the data packet,” and “sending flow control feedback information to a node that has a flow control capability”. Zhuo para. [0213] teaches that optionally, the uplink flow control feedback capability of each IAB node may be enabled by a “donor CU or the donor DU”, which Examiner maps to “determine whether a QoS profile is guaranteed”.
in response to that the QoS profile being guaranteed, determine a path for transmitting the packet, the path being changed from a routing indicated by a central unit (CU) of the multi-hop network, (Zhuo para. [0128] teaches “QoS mapping for a data packet by adding data packet type indication information to the data packet, and “sending flow control feedback information to a node that has a flow control capability”. Zhuo para. [0213] teaches that optionally, the uplink flow control feedback capability of each IAB node may be enabled by a “donor CU or the donor DU”, which Examiner maps to “in response to the QoS profile being guaranteed, determining a path for transmitting the BAP packet”. Zhuo para. [0219] teaches that the BAP routing identifiers may be “preconfigured by the IAB donor (for example, the donor CU)”). Zhuo para. [0219] teaches that the BAP routing identifiers may be “preconfigured by the IAB donor (for example, the donor CU)”).
modify a BAP header associated with the path of the BAP packet, (Zhuo para. [0280]-[0281] teaches that a first IAB node “may further modify routing information (namely, a BAP routing identifier) in a BAP header” after a radio link failure (RLF) occurs and as shown in Fig. 6, a first IAB node (node 5) receives the RLF notification from a second IAB node (node 4).)
and
transmit, to a third node, the BAP packet with the modified BAP header based on the determined path. (Zhuo para. [0288] teaches that the RLF notification may indicate the BAP routing identifier, the first IAB node may perform accurate route adjust (reroute) of the uplink transmission of the uplink data that corresponds to the N BAP routing identifiers, so that congestion of the uplink data in the second IAB node can be avoided to avoid packet loss.)
Although Zhuo teaches a BAP routing and reducing data packet losses, Zhuo does NOT explicitly identify the data packets as “BAP packets”.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Hampel teaches “BAP packets”. Specifically, Hampel para. [0112] teaches “IAB-compatible packets routed through an BH RLC channel may have a BAP header including a routing identifier for the respective packet and may be referred to as a BAP packet.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Zhuo with Hampel and to substitute the packets identified as having a BAP header in Zhuo with the “BAP packets” of Hampel. Each of Zhuo and Hampel are in the field of 3GPP 5G wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhuo and Hampel in order to configure and handle forwarding of packets from different devices over the BAP layer as taught in Hampel para. [0006]-[0007].
Regarding claim 27, Zhuo teaches The first node of claim 26, wherein the multi-hop network is an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) network. (Zhuo teaches in Fig. 1, and para. [0075], and para. [0090] that the IAB network shown in Fig. 1 supports multi-hop and multi-connectivity networking.)
Regarding claim 30, Zhuo teaches The first node of claim 26, wherein the one or more processor is further configured to:
transmit, to the third node, feedback information associated with the determination of the path. (Zhuo teaches para. [0128] “sending flow control feedback information to a node that has a flow control capability”. Zhuo para. [0169]-[0170] teaches that feedback information may be uplink flow control feedback information sent by “an IAB node to a parent node of the IAB node” that “one or more parent nodes” in an uplink is congested including “with different granularities”. The third node shown in Fig. 6 as node 2 is a parent node to both nodes 5 and node 4, therefore, according to Zhuo para. [0169]-[0170] the feedback information would flow to the third node identified as node 2 from node 5.)
Claims 18, 19, 22-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuo in view of Hampel further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20190349834 to Oumer Teyeb (hereinafter Teyeb).
Regarding claim 18, Zhuo in view of Hampel does NOT teach The method of claim 16, wherein the QoS profile comprises a QoS characteristic that is one of a Packet Delay Budget (PDB) required/expected/intended Packet Error-Rate (PER) or a guaranteed bit-rate.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Teyeb teaches wherein the QoS profile comprises a QoS characteristic that is one of a Packet Delay Budget, PDB, required/expected/intended Packet Error- Rate, PER, or a guaranteed bit-rate. (Teyeb para. [0126] teaches that for bearers with strict packet delay requirements which Examiner interprets as a packet delay budget, “a flag can be included in the adaptation header corresponding to a “time to live” value for packets of the bearer”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Teyeb with Zhuo to teach a QoS profile with a packet delay budget. Each of Teyeb and Zhuo are in the field of IAB node communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Teyeb and Zhuo to enable bearer-level QoS -based service quality guarantees in IAB networks so that QoS level of the bearers as well as the hop depth is considered which is taught in Teyeb para. [0056].
Regarding claim 19, Zhuo does not teach The method of claim 16, wherein the determining whether the QoS profile is guaranteed comprises estimating a processing time at each node, and a switching delay between reception (Rx) and transmission (Tx) functions of the first node.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Teyeb teaches wherein the determining whether the QoS profile is guaranteed comprises estimating a processing time at each node, and a switching delay between reception (Rx) and transmission (Tx) functions of the first node. (Teyeb teaches in para. [0126] that for strict packet delay requirements “time spent from the reception of the packet at one end and the transmission to the other end” is included in the QoS determination for QoS guarantees.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Teyeb with Zhuo to teach determining whether the QoS profile is guaranteed by estimating a processing time at each node. Each of Teyeb and Zhuo are in the field of IAB node communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Teyeb and Zhuo to enable bearer-level QoS-based service quality guarantees in IAB networks so that QoS level of the bearers as well as the hop depth is considered which is taught in Teyeb para. [0056].
Regarding claim 22, Zhuo does NOT teach The method of claim 16, further comprising: in case that the QoS profile is not guaranteed, transmitting, to the third node, information indicating that the QoS profile is not guaranteed.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Teyeb teaches in case that the QoS profile is not guaranteed, transmitting, to the third node, information indicating that the QoS profile is not guaranteed. (Teyeb, Fig. 18 teaches a header with a QoS class:
PNG
media_image3.png
665
1394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Teyeb para. [0058] teaches that “low-priority traffic and a distant destination node” is indicated by the QoS class provided in the header shown in Fig. 18. Examiner interprets the “low-priority” as having no guarantee for QoS and by including the QoS class in the header, it is transmitted to subsequent nodes as shown.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Teyeb with Zhuo to teach transmitting information indicating that the QoS profile is not guaranteed. Each of Teyeb and Zhuo are in the field of IAB node communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Teyeb and Zhuo to enable bearer-level QoS -based service quality guarantees in IAB networks so that QoS level of the bearers as well as the hop depth is considered as taught in Teyeb para. [0056].
Regarding claim 23, Zhuo does NOT teach The method of The method of wherein a header of the packet received from the second node includes time information including an expiry time of the packet and a delay per a hop.
However in the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Teyeb teaches wherein a header of the packet received from the second node includes time information including an expiry time of the packet and a delay per a hop. (Teyeb Fig. 18 above illustrates a header including a TTL “time to live” value including a packet-delay requirement for the packet. Teyeb para. [0059] describes the TTL packet and teaches “modifying the time-to-live value to reflect time spent by the packet in the relay node” which examiner interprets as a delay per hop.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Teyeb with Zhuo to teach a header including time information including an expiry time and delay per a hop. Each of Teyeb and Zhuo are in the field of IAB node communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Teyeb and Zhuo to enable bearer-level QoS -based service quality guarantees in IAB networks so that QoS level of the bearers as well as the hop depth is considered as taught in Teyeb para. [0056].
Regarding claim 24, Zhuo does NOT teach The method of claim 17, wherein a header of the BAP packet includes a bearer identifier (ID) of an associated bearer. (Zhuo teaches BAP routing identifiers in paras. [0144]-[0146] but does not specifically use the term “bearer identifier”)
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Teyeb teaches wherein a header of the BAP packet includes a bearer identifier (ID) of an associated bearer. (Teyeb para. [0101] teaches that the header includes a “bearer ID”. “The uplink traffic needs to be modified to consider the adaptation layer header (e.g. UE ID, bearer ID, etc.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Teyeb with Zhou to teach a header including a bearer ID. Each of Teyeb and Zhuo are in the field of IAB node communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Teyeb and Zhuo to enable bearer-level QoS -based service quality guarantees in IAB networks so that QoS level of the bearers as well as the hop depth is considered as taught in Teyeb para. [0056].
Regarding claim 29, Zhuo does NOT teach The first node of claim 26, wherein the one or more processor is further configured to: in case that the QoS profile is not guaranteed, transmit, to the third node, information indicating that the QoS profile is not guaranteed.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Teyeb teaches in case that the QoS profile is not guaranteed, transmit, to the third node, information indicating that the QoS profile is not guaranteed. (Teyeb, Fig. 18 teaches a header with a QoS class:
PNG
media_image3.png
665
1394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Teyeb para. [0058] teaches that “low-priority traffic and a distant destination node” is indicated by the QoS class provided in the header shown in Fig. 18. Examiner interprets the “low-priority” as having no guarantee for QoS and by including the QoS class in the header, it is transmitted to subsequent nodes as shown.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Teyeb with Zhuo to teach transmitting information indicating that the QoS profile is not guaranteed. Each of Teyeb and Zhuo are in the field of IAB node communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Teyeb and Zhuo to enable bearer-level QoS -based service quality guarantees in IAB networks so that QoS level of the bearers as well as the hop depth is considered as taught in Teyeb para. [0056].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights