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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2023 was filed with the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs 1, 3, 3a, 4 and 6 requires descriptive legends, see MPEP 608.02.V(o) “Legends” (R-Patent Rules: 1.84 “Standards for drawings”(o) Legends: Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 12 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 2023/0362745 A1), hereinafter, “Huang” in view of Jung et al (US 2023/0199613 A1), hereinafter, “Jung”.
Regarding claim 1, Huang disclosed: A communication method in a wireless network (fig 14, “Wireless communication system”, para [0111], where, describes a communication method) comprising an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, network, the method comprising at an IAB-node (fig 3, para [0010] and [0040]-[0041], where, the communication system includes IAB node 304):
receiving Backhaul Adaptation Protocol, BAP, using a BAP routing configuration to perform a BAP-sublayer operation (fig 13, para [0096]-[0097], where, the BAP protocol is received with (i) BAP routing ID and BAP addresses of IAB nodes along the corresponding path configured by source donor CU, or (j) Path ID and BAP addresses of IAB nodes along the corresponding path configured by source donor CU, or (k) gNB-DU UE F1AP ID, or (1) identity of DU which serves the UE/IAB-MT, e.g. BAP address, DU ID and/or gNB ID of source donor CU), However, Huang does not explicitly teach: packets wearing the same BAP routing identifier, determining, for the same BAP routing identifier, multiple Radio Link Control, RLC, channels for the received BAP packets, that belong to one or more egress links, and transmitting the BAP packets over the multiple RLC channels.
Jung teaches: packets wearing the same BAP routing identifier (Jung: para [0132], where, “On the BAP sublayer, packets may be routed based on the BAP routing ID, which is carried in the BAP header”, where, same routing ID is being used to route the packet for same destination node routed with primary and secondary routing path with same routing ID, para [0199]), determining, for the same BAP routing identifier (Jung: para [0153], where, “the transmitting part may add the BAP header with the same BAP routing ID as carried on the BAP PDU header prior to removal”), multiple Radio Link Control, RLC, channels for the received BAP packets, that belong to one or more egress links (Jung: para [0150]-[0153], where, “The IAB-node may resolve the BH RLC channel IDs from logical channel IDs based on the configuration by the IAB-donor. For RLC channels in downstream direction, the RLC channel ID may be included in the F1AP configuration of the RLC channel”, which includes multiple RLC channels, e.g., downlink and uplink stream), and transmitting the BAP packets over the multiple RLC channels (Jung: para [0150]-[0153], where, “The IAB-node may resolve the BH RLC channel IDs from logical channel IDs based on the configuration by the IAB-donor. For RLC channels in downstream direction, the RLC channel ID may be included in the F1AP configuration of the RLC channel”, which includes multiple RLC channels, e.g., downlink and uplink streams, Table-US-00004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “packets wearing the same BAP routing identifier, determining, for the same BAP routing identifier, multiple Radio Link Control, RLC, channels for the received BAP packets, that belong to one or more egress links, and transmitting the BAP packets over the multiple RLC channels” as taught by Jung into Huang in order to enable communication between devices that are low-cost, massive in number and battery-driven, intended to support applications such as smart metering, logistics, and field and body sensors (Jung: para [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing and communication method of IAB network, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 18, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing and communication method of IAB network, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a IAB-donor Central Unit. However, Huang discloses the IAB-donor Central Unit (Huang: para [0053]).
Regarding claim 20, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing and communication device, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a processor. However, Huang discloses the processor (Huang: fig 15, para [0114]).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing and communication system, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a IAB-donor Central Unit and Distributed Unit. However, Huang discloses the IAB-donor Central Unit and Distributed Unit (Huang: para [0053]).
Regarding claim 23, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing and communication storing medium, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a processor and memory. However, Huang discloses the processor and memory (Huang: fig 15, para [0114]).
Regarding claims 2, 12, Huang modified by Jung teach: wherein transmitting the BAP packets (Jung: para [0005], where, IAM node may receive a packet (equivalent to “BAP packet”) from parent node) include obtaining BAP packets redundant to a received BAP packet and sending the redundant BAP packets (Jung: para [0007]-[0010], where, “provide method and apparatus for a packet duplication in IAB network in a wireless communication system”) over the multiple RLC channels (Jung: para [0048], where, “Ingress BH RLC channel” refers to an BH RLC channel on which a packet is received by a node”).
Regarding claim 3, Huang modified by Jung teach: The method of Claim 2, wherein the redundant BAP packets (Jung: para [0007]-[0010], where, “provide method and apparatus for a packet duplication (equivalent to “redundant”) in IAB network in a wireless communication system”) include the received BAP packet and one or more duplicates thereof (Jung: para [0016], where, “a packet duplication for a specific ingress BH RLC channel for which the condition is configured, so that the IAB node can preferentially handle packets with high priority”).
Regarding claim 15, Huang modified by Jung teach: The method of Claim 9, wherein the BAP routing configuration (Jung: para [0133]) includes a first configuration table made of entries each associating one BAP routing identifier with one BAP address of another IAB-node (Huang: para [0010], where, target IAB is equivalent to “another IAB”), wherein the entry or entries corresponding to one or more BAP routing identifiers of the received BAP packets (Huang: para [0053], where, “traffic mapping configuration for the collated IAB-DU configured by the source donor CU, or BAP routing ID and BAP addresses of IAB nodes along the corresponding path configured by the source donor CU, or a Path ID and BAP addresses of IAB nodes along the corresponding path configured by the source donor CU “) further define a BAP-sublayer operation to be performed to obtain the original BAP packet from the received redundant BAP packets (Huang: para [0009], where, receive a measurement threshold via RRC message sent from IAB donor CU).
Regarding claim 16, Huang modified by Jung teach: The method of Claim 15, wherein the BAP routing configuration (Jung: para [0133]) includes a second configuration table made of entries associating one egress link with one or more RLC channels (Jung: para [0150], where, “ABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Next-hop BAP Prior-hop BAP Ingress RLC Egress”) and wherein an entry corresponding to a determined egress link is associated with a plurality of RLC channels (Jung: para [0150], where, “RLC address channel ID channel ID Derived from Derived from Derived from To be used on routing packet's egress link to configuration ingress link ingress link forward packet”).
Regarding claim 17, Huang modified by Jung teach: The method of Claim 16, wherein the entry further includes a triggering field (Jung: para [0054] and para [0202]) and defining one or more BAP routing identifiers for which the plurality of RLC channels is to be used (Jung: para [0134]-[0136], where, “the IAB-donor CU may configure the IAB-node with mappings between upstream F1- and non-F1-traffic originated at the IAB-node, and the appropriate BAP routing ID and Backhaul RLC channel”).
Regarding claim 19, Huang modified by Jung teach: The method of Claim 18, wherein another one of the BAP routing configurations configures another IAB-node (Huang: para [0010], where, target IAB is equivalent to “another IAB”) as a terminator of the same BAP-sublayer operation to process received redundant BAP packets into an original BAP packet and transmit the single original BAP packet (Huang: para [0034], where, terminating node or commonly referred as IAB donor node) over an egress link or its content to upper layers (Jung: para [0127], where, “Determination of egress RLC channels for packets routed to next hop: [0128] Differentiating traffic to be delivered to upper layers from traffic to be delivered to egress link”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 2023/0362745 A1), hereinafter, “Huang” in view of Jung et al (US 2023/0199613 A1), hereinafter, “Jung” further in view of AKI et al (US 2021/0127296 A1), hereinafter, “AKI”.
Regarding claim 6, Huang modified by Jung teach: The method of Claim 2, wherein obtaining the redundant BAP packets (Jung: para [0005], where, receive the duplicate packets) Huang modified by Jung do not explicitly teach: includes network encoding the received BAP packet.
AKI teaches: includes network encoding the received BAP packet (AKI: para [0153], where, “an IAB node may receive data packets, check a BAP header for the data packets, and determine whether to send the data to an upper layer, whether to perform network encoding or decoding, or whether to send the data packets along a path as indicated by the BAP information”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “includes network encoding the received BAP packet” as taught by AKI into the system of Huang and Jung in order to allow a base station 105 to implement network coding schemes for different types of wireless backhaul communications networks (AKI: para [0200]).
Regarding claim 7, Huang modified by Jung further modified by AKI teach: The method of Claim 6, wherein the redundant BAP packets resulting from the network encoding of the same received BAP packet are tagged with successive sequence numbers (AKI: para [0153], where, “an IAB node may receive data packets, check a BAP header for the data packets, and determine whether to send the data to an upper layer, whether to perform network encoding or decoding, or whether to send the data packets along a path as indicated by the BAP information”).
Claims 4-5, 8, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 2023/0362745 A1), hereinafter, “Huang” in view of Jung et al (US 2023/0199613 A1), hereinafter, “Jung” further in view of Chen et al (US 2014/0293879 A1), hereinafter, “Chen”.
Regarding claim 4, Huang modified by Jung do not explicitly teach: further comprising adding the same sequence number to the received BAP packet and the duplicates thereof.
Chen teaches: further comprising adding the same sequence number to the received BAP packet and the duplicates thereof (Chen: para [0188], where, “others remain the same (the sequence number in the message header is still M, and the packaging time is also dwTime)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “adding the same sequence number to the received BAP packet and the duplicates” as taught by Chen into the system of Huang and Jung in order to provide higher data rates (Chen: para [0086]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Huang modified by Jung teach further modified by Chen teach: wherein when the received BAP packet already includes a sequence number (Chen: para [0040]-[0046], where, the BAP packet already includes the sequence number), the received BAP packet and its duplicates keep the sequence number, without another sequence number being added (Chen: para [0188], where, “others remain the same (the sequence number in the message header is still M, and the packaging time is also dwTime)”).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Huang modified by Jung further modified by Chen teach: further comprising determining, from the BAP routing configuration (Jung: para [0133]), whether a sequence number has to be removed from the original BAP packet compared to the received redundant BAP packets or not (Chen: para [0084], where, “the GSN does not learn of that, and the GSN still maintain these possibly duplicated packets manually released/deleted by the CGF (including sequence numbers)”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461