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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 5-9, 12-14, 22-23, 29, 30, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradas et al. “Pradas” US 2022/0394797 in view of Zhuo et al. “Zhuo” CN-113518382 (see attached for citations and translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Pradas teaches a device and a method in a wireless communication network comprising an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, network, the method comprising, at a detecting IAB-node having Backhaul, BH, radio links established with other IAB-nodes (Paragraph 57 and figures 4-6):
detecting a change in link conditions of one of the BH radio links (detecting RLF; Paragraph 59), and
responsive to the detection, sending a BAP control packet that includes an indication message to at least one of the other IAB-nodes (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure (received information (see also paragraph 59), the packets are re-routed along a different path. After a RLF has occurred (i.e. in response to the detection), transmit a RLF indication to a first IAB node; Paragraphs 59-60),
wherein the indication message indicates a detected link condition change in the IAB network and further provides information relating to the BH radio link (the indication message indicates a parent IAB node is unsuitable for camping; Paragraph 59), and
wherein the information relating to the BH radio link signals one or more impacted BAP paths involving the BH radio link (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure (received information (see also paragraph 57), the packets are re-routed along a different path. After a RLF has occurred transmit a RLF indication to a first IAB node; Paragraphs 59-60. The parent node being unsuitable for camping would be one example of information relating to the BH radio link signaling impacted paths. If a node is impacted, a path is also impacted. Paragraphs 16 and 19 teaches the BAP uses BAP routing IDs. Paragraph 62 teaches the RLF indication includes cell IDs of the nodes where each cell ID of the plurality of cell IDs is unsuitable for camping for connection reestablishment and suitable for connection reestablishment. Thus, the impacts nodes/routes are identified. As the RLF indication includes a BAP control PDU, the indication includes a BAP path ID/routing ID of the paths).
Pradas does not expressly disclose including, for each impacted BAP path, a BAP path ID and/or a BAP routing ID of the impacted BAP path; however, Zhuo teaches sending a RLF notification which includes BAP routing numbers of the backhaul failure (i.e. impacted path); Page 32 3rd paragraph. Further, in another design the RLF notification includes BAP routing IDs and the first IAB node can select route identifiers of other BAP ID; Page 32 Paragraph starts “in one possible design”. Here one can see there would be IDs associated with impacted and non-impacted paths.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Pradas to expressly disclose the RLF message includes BAP IDs of impacted paths as taught by Zhuo.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the IAB nodes can identify which BAP IDs are associated with backhaul link failures and route around it as taught by Zhuo; Page 32 3rd paragraph and the paragraph starting with “in one possible design”.
Regarding claim 2, Pradas teaches wherein detecting a change includes detecting a deficiency in the BH radio link, a recovery of the BH radio link previously deficient, or a radio link failure or a recovery from a radio link failure, comparing a radio link quality level of the BH radio link to a quality threshold, or comparing a congestion level of the BH radio link to a congestion threshold (the system detects a RLF; Paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 5, Pradas teaches the other IAB-node or nodes is a child or parent (Paragraphs 57-59 teach the system includes parent and child IAB nodes. Thus the indication would be sent to either a child or parent).
Regarding claim 6, Pradas teaches wherein when the change in link conditions is detected by an IAB-mobile termination of the detecting IAB-node, the other IAB-node or nodes to which the indication message is sent include one child IAB-node given a topology of the IAB network (Paragraphs 57-59 disclose detecting link changes and sending indications to parents/children. The IAB nodes can have a mobile termination part which is used to communicate with parent nodes; Paragraph 3, see also paragraphs 46-47), and
when the change in link conditions is detected by an IAB-distributed unit of the detecting IAB-node, the other IAB-node or nodes to which the indication message is sent include one parent IAB-node given a topology of the IAB network (The system includes distributed units (DUs) as is known in the art; Paragraphs 3-4. RLF detection and indication information can be sent between children/parent nodes with respect to the Dus of the IAB nodes; Paragraph 135).
Regarding claims 7 and 30, Pradas teaches a device and method in a wireless communication network comprising an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, network, the method comprising, at a routing IAB-node:
receiving, from another IAB-node, a BAP control packet that includes an indication message, wherein the indication message indicates a detected link condition change in the IAB network and further provides information relating to a BH radio link concerned by the link condition change (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure (received information (see also paragraph 59), the packets are re-routed along a different path. After a RLF has occurred (i.e. in response to the detection), transmit a RLF indication to a first IAB node; Paragraphs 59-60). A RLF (link condition change) is detected and an indication message indicates a parent IAB node is unsuitable for camping; Paragraph 59), and
wherein the information relating to the BH radio link signals one or more impacted BAP paths involving the BH radio link by including, for each impacted BAP path, a BAP path ID and/or a BAP routing ID of the impacted BAP path (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure (received information (see also paragraph 57), the packets are re-routed along a different path. After a RLF has occurred transmit a RLF indication to a first IAB node; Paragraphs 59-60. The parent node being unsuitable for camping would be one example of information relating to the BH radio link signaling impacted paths. If a node is impacted, a path is also impacted. Paragraphs 16 and 19 teaches the BAP uses BAP routing IDs. Paragraph 62 teaches the RLF indication includes cell IDs of the nodes where each cell ID of the plurality of cell IDs is unsuitable for camping for connection reestablishment and suitable for connection reestablishment); and
deciding to adapt, based on the received information, a routing of Backhaul Adaptation Protocol, BAP, packets between routing over an impacted BAP path involving the BH radio link and routing over an alternate BAP path (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure (received information), the packets are re-routed along a different path (i.e. adapting packets over impacts path with alternate path).
Pradas does not expressly disclose including, for each impacted BAP path, a BAP path ID and/or a BAP routing ID of the impacted BAP path; however, Zhuo teaches sending a RLF notification which includes BAP routing numbers of the backhaul failure (i.e. impacted path); Page 32 3rd paragraph. Further, in another design the RLF notification includes BAP routing IDs and the first IAB node can select route identifiers of other BAP ID; Page 32 Paragraph starts “in one possible design”. Here one can see there would be IDs associated with impacted and non-impacted paths.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Pradas to expressly disclose the RLF message includes BAP IDs of impacted paths as taught by Zhuo.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the IAB nodes can identify which BAP IDs are associated with backhaul link failures and route around it as taught by Zhuo; Page 32 3rd paragraph and the paragraph starting with “in one possible design”.
Regarding claim 8, Pradas teaches forwarding the indication to one or more child IAB-nodes (Paragraphs 57-59 teaches the system includes parent and child IAB nodes. Thus the indication would be sent to either a child or parent).
Regarding claim 9, Pradas teaches updating link condition information within the indication message and relating to an impacted BAP path involving the BH radio link, based on an evaluated link condition of its egress BH radio link (a RLF (link condition change) is detected and an indication message indicates a parent IAB node is unsuitable for camping; Paragraph 59. This is viewed as evaluated a link condition and updating information in the indication message. Paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure, the packets are re-routed along a different path (i.e. adapting packets over impacts path with alternate path).
Regarding claim 12, Pradas teaches at the detecting or routing IAB node, determining an impacted BAP path involving the BH radio link (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure, the packets are re-routed along a different path (i.e. adapting packets over impacts path with alternate path. Thus one can see the IAB node detects an impacting path with radio links).
Regarding claim 13, Pradas teaches determining a BAP path alternate to the impacted BAP path and rerouting over the alternate path the packets specifying the impacted BAP path (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure, the packets are re-routed along a different path.
Regarding claim 14, Pradas teaches determining a BAP path alternate to the impacted BAP path and rerouting over the alternate path the packets specifying the impacted BAP path (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure, the packets are re-routed along a different path.
Regarding claim 22, Pradas teaches the information relating to the BH radio link sis a BAP routing ID (Paragraphs 16 and 19 teaches the BAP uses BAP routing IDs).
Regarding claim 23, Pradas teaches the information relating to the BH radio link sis a BAP routing ID (Paragraphs 16 and 19 teaches the BAP uses BAP routing IDs).
Regarding claim 33, Pradas teaches at the detecting or routing IAB node, determining an impacted BAP path involving the BH radio link (paragraph 9 and 15-22 discuss the new protocol layer BAP. Paragraph 24-27 and Figures 4-6 show that in the event of a link failure, the packets are re-routed along a different path (i.e. adapting packets over impacts path with alternate path. Thus one can see the IAB node detects an impacting path with radio links).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 10, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradas in view of Muhammad et al. “Muhammad” US 2022/0132337.
Regarding claim 10, Pradas does not disclose retrieving from a received indication message, an indication as to whether or not to forward the message to a donor or shared AIB node and forwarding the indication message; however, Muhammad teaches an indication message is received and the indication can includes information that is to be forwarded to the donor CU of an IAB node; Paragraphs 83 and 203.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Pradas to include forwarding information received to a donor node as taught by Muhammad.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can pause/reduce transmissions towards the child IAB nodes as taught by Muhammad; Paragraph 203.
Regarding claim 16, Pradas does not teach stop rerouting packets for an impacted path over the alternate path and routing them back on the impacted path; however, Muhammad teaches that based on failures, alternate paths for IAB nodes are determined and packets forwarded over the alternate path; Paragraph 81. Further, when the impacted backhaul connection has been restored, the IAB nodes can resume normal operation and the IAB nodes are prevented from connecting to the alternate path; Paragraph 216. Thus, one can see that the packets are initially re-routed to an alternate path upon a failure detection (i.e. impacted path), but once the backhaul connection has been restored, the nodes can resume sending data on that restored path (i.e. impacted path) and no longer are sent on the alternate path.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Pradas to include sending data along the impacted path and stop rerouting over an alternate path as taught by Muhammad.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can resume normal operations once the backhaul has been restored as taught by Muhammad; Paragraph 216.
Regarding claim 17, Pradas does not teach stop rerouting packets for an impacted path over the alternate path and routing them back on the impacted path; however, Muhammad teaches that based on failures, alternate paths for IAB nodes are determined and packets forwarded over the alternate path; Paragraph 81. Further, when the impacted backhaul connection has been restored, the IAB nodes can resume normal operation and the IAB nodes are prevented from connecting to the alternate path; Paragraph 216. Thus, one can see that the packets are initially re-routed to an alternate path upon a failure detection (i.e. impacted path), but once the backhaul connection has been restored, the nodes can resume sending data on that restored path (i.e. impacted path) and no longer are sent on the alternate path.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Pradas to include sending data along the impacted path and stop rerouting over an alternate path as taught by Muhammad.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can resume normal operations once the backhaul has been restored as taught by Muhammad; Paragraph 216.
Claim(s) 15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradas in view of Mukherjee et al. “Mukherjee” US 2022/0210699.
Regarding claim 15, Pradas does not teach updating a BAP routing identifier of the rerouted BAP packets to the alternate BAP path; however, Mukherjee teaches due to a failure of a link in the route, BAPs are updated for path information; Paragraphs 168-169. The system uses alternate routes; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Pradas to include updating path information for the alternate paths as taught by Mukherjee.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that in the event of link failures, BAPs can be updating with new path information for routing to alternate paths as taught by Mukherjee; Paragraphs 167-168.
Regarding claim 25, Pradas teaches sending information relating to BH radio link including condition information of the impacted MAP path; Paragraph 59; however, Pradas does not disclose the link condition information includes one of a radio link quality level of the BH radio link or path quality of an impacted BAP path. Mukherjee teaches that report information is sent/received which includes link quality information of the backhaul; Paragraphs 117-118 which is used to determine failures.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Pradas to include the received information includes link/path quality information as taught by Mukherjee.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can determine when there is a link failure as taught by Mukherjee; Paragraph 118.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-17, 22, 23, 25, 39, 30, 33 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.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues the cited art does not teach a detecting IAB detecting a change in link conditions of BH links, and in response, sending BAP including an indication message indicated a detected link condition change in the network and providing information relating to the BH links which includes one or more impacted BAP paths and a BAP path/routing ID of the impacted BAP path. Applicant argues the cited art teaches a parent node sending RLF to its child including cell identifiers of IAB nodes that are unsuitable for camping. The RLF indication, as argued, is not used to re-route packets at the node that receives the indication.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claim language does not require the node receiving the information to perform re-routing, thus the argument that the RLF indication is not used to re-route packets at the node receiving the indication is moot. All the claims are stating is that one node sends impacted BAP path information to another node based on a detected link condition change. The combination of references in the newly formed rejection properly read on the amended limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights