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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to amendment
3. This is a Non-Final Office action in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on March 20, 2026.
4. Status of the claims:
• Claims 1, 7, 9, 15 have been amended.
• Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to remarks/arguments
5. Applicant’s remarks and arguments filed on March 20, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-16 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cho et al. (US 20200383030 A1).
6. In response to Applicant’s remarks and arguments filed on March 20, 2026 regarding amended independent claims 1 and 9, the Examiner acknowledges that ZTE and FUJISHIRO do not explicitly teach the newly recited features as argued by Applicant. However, the system of Cho et al. (US 20200383030 A1) cures this deficiency.
Please see the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-4, 8-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE (Considerations on topology adaptation enhancements in IAB, dated 02/05/2021, 8 pages) in view of FUJISHIRO et al. (US 20230180327 A1) and further in view of Cho et al. (US 20200383030 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ZTE discloses a method performed by an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node in a communication system (page 4: method performed by IAB node of figure 1), comprising: identifying that the IAB node is migrated from a first IAB donor node to a second IAB donor node (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, page 5: detecting RLF over the egress link towards donor DU1, and then IAB node 1 may consider to re-route the UL packet destined toward donor DU1 to donor DU2, which is called inter-donor DU re-routing); and changing a header of a data packet based on a backhaul adaptation (BAP) routing identifier (ID) (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, page 6, para. 3, proposal 9: updating a backhaul adaptation (BAP) header of a data packet to include a BAP routing identifier (ID) of the selected path.
ZTE does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the header is changed based on configuration information for changing the header included in an F1AP message, and wherein the BAP routing ID includes a destination field associated with information on an address and a path field associated with information on a path.
In the same of endeavor, FUJISHIRO teaches wherein the header is changed based on configuration information for changing the header included in an F1AP message (FUJISHIRO, para. 112, 143, 160: The IAB node 300 relays the received uplink packet to the IAB node 300a and/or the IAB node 300b, each being a parent node, based on a routing configuration configured from the donor gNB 200 and information (BAP routing ID) included in a header of the uplink packet. The IAB node 300 may change the header of the downlink packet subjected to the local routing. For example, in a BAP header, the routing ID may be changed, and an identifier indicating that the local routing has been performed. The routing configuration change request may be an F1 message (F1AP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the header of an F1AP message based on configuration information as taught by FUJISHIRO. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide predictable technique for modifying protocol headers based on configuration parameters and for enabling interoperability, flexibility, and efficient signaling in communication networks.
ZTE and FUJISHIRO do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the BAP routing ID includes a destination field associated with information on an address and a path field associated with information on a path.
In the same of endeavor, Cho teaches wherein the BAP routing ID includes a destination field associated with information on an address and a path field associated with information on a path (Cho, para. [0231][0236]: In IAB networks, data is forwarded between the IAB-donor and a specific UE via one or more IAB-nodes. For each packet to be forwarded, an IAB-node selects a next-hop node for data transmission according to both routing table configured on the IAB-node and routing ID (e.g., destination address and path ID) carried in Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP) header of the packet. The routing table has the routing information containing destination address, path ID, next-hop node, BH link or BH RLC channel. In case the routing table holds multiple next-hop nodes for the same destination address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention combine the teaching of ZTE and FUJISHIRO with teaching of Cho to include the above features such that the BAP routing ID includes a destination field associated with information on an address and a path field associated with information on a path as taught by Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for selecting a path for transferring data unit in wireless communication system and an apparatus therefor (para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the changing the header of the data packet is performed by a BAP entity in the IAB node (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, pages 5, 6: Suppose IAB node 1 detects RLF over the egress link towards donor DU1, and then IAB node 1 may consider to re-route the UL packet destined toward donor DU1 to donor DU2, and IAB node needs to update the BAP header of the data packet to include the BAP routing ID of the selected path).
Regarding claim 3, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying comprises: identifying that the IAB node is migrated from a first IAB donor CU of the first IAB donor node to a second IAB donor CU of the second IAB donor node (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, pages 5, 6: Suppose IAB node 1 detects RLF over the egress link towards donor DU1, and IAB node 1 may consider to re-route the UL packet destined toward donor DU1 to donor DU2).
Regarding claim 4, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the changing the header of the data packet comprises: rewriting an old BAP routing ID to a new BAP routing ID in the header (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, pages 5-6: When the inter-donor DU re-routing path is selected, IAB node needs to update the BAP header of the data packet to include the BAP routing ID of the selected path).
Regarding claim 8, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the data packet is to be routed to the second IAB donor node (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3, pages 4-5: Suppose IAB node 1 detects RLF over the egress link towards donor DUL IAB node 1 may consider to re-route the UL packet destined toward donor DU1 to donor DU2, which is called inter-donor DU re-muting. Moreover, when lAB node MT/DU detects egress link failure of UL/DL packet, IAB node MT/DU could find backup routing path for UL/DL packet. The BAP routing ID of backup routing path should have the same destination BAP address with original routing path but corresponding to different next hop available node).
Regarding claim 9, ZTE discloses an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node in a communication system (page 5: IAB node of communication system of Fig. 2), the IAB node comprising: a transceiver (page 5, Fig. 1: IAB node can send and receive data); and a controller (Fig. 1; section 2-3: IAB node could find backup routing path for UL/DL packet) coupled with the transceiver and configured to: identify that the IAB node is migrated from a first IAB donor node to a second IAB donor node (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, page 5: detecting RLF over the egress link towards donor DU1, and then IAB node 1 may consider to re-route the UL packet destined toward donor DU1 to donor DU2, which is called inter-donor DU re-routing), and change a header of a data packet based on a backhaul adaptation (BAP) routing identifier (ID) (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, page 6, para. 3, proposal 9: updating a BAP header of a data packet to include a BAP routing identifier (ID) of the selected path).
ZTE does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the header is changed based on configuration information for changing the header included in an F1AP message, and wherein the BAP routing ID includes a destination field associated with information on an address and a path field associated with information on a path.
In the same of endeavor, FUJISHIRO discloses wherein the header is changed based on configuration information for changing the header included in an F1AP message (FUJISHIRO, para. 112, 143, 160: The IAB node 300 relays the received uplink packet to the IAB node 300a and/or the IAB node 300b, each being a parent node, based on a routing configuration configured from the donor gNB 200 and information (BAP routing ID) included in a header of the uplink packet. The IAB node 300 may change the header of the downlink packet subjected to the local routing. For example, in a BAP header, the routing ID may be changed, and an identifier indicating that the local routing has been performed. The routing configuration change request may be an F1 message (F1AP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the header of an F1AP message based on configuration information as taught by FUJISHIRO. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide predictable technique for modifying protocol headers based on configuration parameters and for enabling interoperability, flexibility, and efficient signaling in communication networks.
ZTE and FUJISHIRO do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the BAP routing ID includes a destination field associated with information on an address and a path field associated with information on a path.
In the same of endeavor, Cho teaches wherein the BAP routing ID includes a destination field associated with information on an address and a path field associated with information on a path (Cho, para. [0231][0236]: In IAB networks, data is forwarded between the IAB-donor and a specific UE via one or more IAB-nodes. For each packet to be forwarded, an IAB-node selects a next-hop node for data transmission according to both routing table configured on the IAB-node and routing ID (e.g., destination address and path ID) carried in Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP) header of the packet. The routing table has the routing information containing destination address, path ID, next-hop node, BH link or BH RLC channel. In case the routing table holds multiple next-hop nodes for the same destination address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention combine the teaching of ZTE and FUJISHIRO with teaching of Cho to include the above features such that the BAP routing ID includes a destination field associated with information on an address and a path field associated with information on a path as taught by Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for selecting a path for transferring data unit in wireless communication system and an apparatus therefor (para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the IAB node of claim 9, wherein the changing the header of the data packet is performed by a BAP entity in the IAB node (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, pages 5, 6: Suppose IAB node 1 detects RLF over the egress link towards donor DU1, and then IAB node 1 may consider to re-route the UL packet destined toward donor DU1 to donor DU2, and IAB node needs to update the BAP header of the data packet to include the BAP routing ID of the selected path).
Regarding claim 11, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the IAB node of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to: identify that the IAB node is migrated from a first IAB donor CU of the first IAB donor node to a second IAB donor CU of the second IAB donor node (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, pages 5, 6: Suppose IAB node 1 detects RLF over the egress link towards donor DU1, and IAB node 1 may consider to re-route the UL packet destined toward donor DU1 to donor DU2).
Regarding claim 12, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the IAB node of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to: rewrite an old BAP routing ID to a new BAP routing ID in the header (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3.2, pages 5-6: When the inter-donor DU re-routing path is selected, IAB node needs to update the BAP header of the data packet to include the BAP routing ID of the selected path).
Regarding claim 16, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the IAB node of claim 9, wherein the data packet is to be routed to the second IAB donor node (ZTE, Fig. 2, section 2.3, pages 4-5: Suppose IAB node 1 detects RLF over the egress link towards donor DUL IAB node 1 may consider to re-route the UL packet destined toward donor DU1 to donor DU2, which is called inter-donor DU re-muting. Moreover, when lAB node MT/DU detects egress link failure of UL/DL packet, IAB node MT/DU could find backup routing path for UL/DL packet. The BAP routing ID of backup routing path should have the same destination BAP address with original routing path but corresponding to different next hop available node).
12. Claims 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE (Considerations on topology adaptation enhancements in IAB, dated 02/05/2021, 8 pages) in view of FUJISHIRO et al. (US 20230180327 A1), Cho et al. (US 20200383030 A1) and further in view of Muherjee et al. (US 20220210699 A1).
Regarding claim 7, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the method of claim 1, but do not appear to disclose wherein the destination field includes ten bits of the information on the address and the path field includes ten bits of the information on the path.
In the same of endeavor, Mukherjee teaches wherein the destination field includes ten bits of the information on the address and the path field includes ten bits of the information on the path (Mukherjee, Fig. 6, para. [0008]-[0010]: a DESTINATION field which has a length of 10 bits and carries the BAP address of destination of IAB node or IAB-donor node. [0010] a PATH field which has a length of 10 bits and carries the BAP path identity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention combine the teaching of ZTE, FUJISHIRO and Cho with teaching of Mukherjee to include the above features such that the destination field includes ten bits of the information on the address and the path field includes ten bits of the information on the path as taught by Mukherjee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency, robustness and adaptability to traffic loads of Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) networks through the support of multi-Radio Access Technologies (para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, ZTE, FUJISHIRO, and Cho disclose the IAB node of claim 9, but do not appear to disclose wherein the destination field includes ten bits of the information on the address and the path field includes ten bits of the information on the path.
In the same of endeavor, Mukherjee teaches wherein the destination field includes ten bits of the information on the address and the path field includes ten bits of the information on the path (Mukherjee, Fig. 6, para. [0008]-[0010]: a DESTINATION field which has a length of 10 bits and carries the BAP address of destination of IAB node or IAB-donor node. [0010] a PATH field which has a length of 10 bits and carries the BAP path identity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention combine the teaching of ZTE, FUJISHIRO and Cho with teaching of Mukherjee to include the above features such that the destination field includes ten bits of the information on the address and the path field includes ten bits of the information on the path as taught by Mukherjee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency, robustness and adaptability to traffic loads of Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) networks through the support of multi-Radio Access Technologies (para. [0018]).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN F VOLTAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-3953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30 PM.
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, REBECCA E. SONG can be reached at (571)270-3667. 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.
/JEAN F VOLTAIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417