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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 11/20/2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 12-14, 22-23, 29, 30, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pradas et al. “Pradas” US 2022/0394797.
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 59), 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).
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 (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 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).
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).
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.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach the amended limitation because Pradas does not teach or suggest information relating to the BH radio link signals or indicates one or more impacted BAP paths involving the BH radio link because the cell identifier of the RLF indicates suitability for camping but does not teach information related to signals impacted BAP paths involving the BH radio link.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pradas teaches RLF indications are received using BAP. This information is with respect to a BH radio link that has failed. If a radio link has failed, this impacts the entire path and is thus viewed as indicated an impacted BAP path because the path includes the BH radio link (See Figures 4-6 which show a link failure causing a re-establishment of a connection/re-routing of data along a different path). Thus it is clear that the information being sent is with respect to at least one impacted BAP path. Paragraph 22 also teaches the notion of selection of paths/route is performed at link failure. This again emphasizes that when a RLF occurs, path/route selection is performed which is due to a path being impacted.
The Examiner suggests better defining what is occurring when a “change” is detected in the link/path conditions, what “impacted BAP path” really means (if a link is impacted (which Pradas discusses) this also means the path is impacted). Further, definition in the claim language of what the system does in the event of the changes would potentially help overcome the cited art of record. Applicant (page 10 of the arguments) talks about other IAB nodes being able to take action to avoid impacted BAP paths by selecting different paths or by reestablishing new connections with different nodes. This is exactly what Pradas is doing with the camping/re-establishment information. Figures 4-6 further show selection of different paths as well. Therefore, the prior art properly reads on the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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