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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 08 July 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-9 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlicht et al. (US 2009/0252134 A1) in view of Larsson et al. (US 2008/0232258 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schlicht appears to disclose a self-backhauled Base Station (BS) (S-BS) (102) comprising:
a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; a scheduling module (201) implemented by the processor executing instructions stored in the memory ([0516] disclosing the techniques described in the disclosure and cited below can be through a computer executing software stored in memory);
wherein the scheduling module (201) is configured for:
determining a queue length at the S-BS (102) ([0155] and [0160] disclosing a mobile broadband routable internet (MBRI) comprising mobile a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) or mesh access point (MAP)”, the MAP corresponding to the claimed S-BS; [0271] disclosing use of local node information such as queue depth);
computing a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of a link between the S-BS (102) and at least one other first S-BS ([0292] disclosing the MBRI MAC layer can determine estimates of SNR for each received time slot);
assigning a weight to the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS, if a distance between the S-BS and a fibre-BS is greater than a distance between the at least one other first S-BS and the fibre-BS ([0388] disclosing “Each node in the network may compute its own bandwidth in and bandwidth out for each of its 1 hop neighbors (e.g. all of the nodes within direct communication range of a transmitter” and “utilizing bandwidth out and bandwidth in to compute node weight; [0160] a BAP may be a network access point with wire-line backhaul capabilities, such as via fiber”, BAP corresponding to the claimed fibre-BS; [0179] disclosing “A link exists if two nodes are within direct communications range of one another. These nodes are called one-hop neighbors.”; Fig. 2A, AP10 representing the S-BS, and AP12 representing the fibre-BS as not being a direct neighbor, all nodes perform this function including when they are not one-hop neighbors of the BAP), wherein the scheduling module (201) is further configured for calculating the weight as a product of
a queue length at the S-BS (102) ([0273]);
a difference between the distance from the S-BS (102) to the fibre-BS (101) and the distance between the at least one other first S-BS and the fibre-BS (101) Fig. 2A, AP10 representing the S-BS, and AP12 representing the fibre-BS; [0386]-[0387]); and
a capacity of the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS ([0388]);
activating the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS, if one of
the weight assigned to the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS is greater than or equal to a weight of a link between the S-BS (102) and all other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) ([0294] disclosing nodes with higher weights win the slots; [0298], [0386], [0387] disclosing use of node weights for each one-hop neighbor to provide channel access to nodes with the most data to transmit);
the link between the S-BS (102) and all the other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) has been deactivated;
the weight assigned to the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS is greater than or equal to a weight of a link between the at least one other first S-BS and all the other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) ([0294] disclosing nodes with higher weights win the slots; [0298], [0386], [0387] disclosing use of node weights for each one-hop neighbor to provide channel access to nodes with the most data to transmit); or
the link between the at least one other first S-BS and all the other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) has been deactivated; and
transmitting packets from the queue over the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS ([0294] nodes with the higher weight wins the slot; [0387] nodes with the most data to transmit get the channel access), so as to achieve a low average delay in sending the packets from the queues of different S-BSs to a fibre-BS (The broadest reasonable interpretation of this functional language is the intended result of activating a link based on the weight calculations and transmitting packets on the activated link. This is a feature does not limit the claim scope because one of ordinary skill in the art of scheduling packets would understand that the structure already recited in the claim processor and memory configured with instructions to perform the recited functions operates to achieve the intended result achieving low average delay for the queued data waiting to be transferred).
Schlicht does not expressly disclose the following; however, Larsson suggests a Shannon capacity ([0008], [0013] equation 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques of Schlicht with the disclosure of Larsson because the teaching lies in Larsson that use of such metrics strives to offer the minimum delay possible while offering the least time resource utilization along a multihop path ([0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Schlicht appears to disclose the self-backhauled Base Station (BS) (S-BS), as claimed in claim 1, wherein the scheduling module (201) is further configured for deactivating the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS, if the distance between the S-BS (102) and a fibre-BS (101) is not greater than the distance between the at least one other first S-BS and the fibre-BS (101) ([0155] and [0160] disclosing a mobile broadband routable internet (MBRI) comprising mobile a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) or mesh access point (MAP); [0299] disclosing use of open shortest path first which inherently creates routes to neighbors as topologies change (i.e., if a mobile node moves into direct range of the fibre-BS it will update its routing table with an entry to the destination (e.g., fibre-BS) to connect directly to the fibre-BS and it will not maintain the previous entry which is no longer the shortest path).
Regarding claim 4, Schlicht appears to disclose the self-backhauled Base Station (BS) (S-BS), as claimed in claim 1, wherein the scheduling module (201) is further configured for checking if the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS is in a pending state ([0273] disclosing the determination is made which node transmits during each time slot (i.e., all nodes are pending transmission)).
Regarding claim 5, Schlicht appears to disclose a method for scheduling of self-backhaul links in millimeter wave networks, wherein the method further comprises:
determining, by a self-backhauled Base Station (BS) (S-BS) (102), a queue length at the S-BS (102) ([0155] and [0160] disclosing a mobile broadband routable internet (MBRI) comprising mobile a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) or mesh access point (MAP)”, the MAP corresponding to the claimed S-BS; [0271] disclosing use of local node information such as queue depth);
computing, by the S-BS (102), a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of a link between the S-BS (102) and at least one other first S-BS ([0292] disclosing the MBRI MAC layer can determine estimates of SNR for each received time slot);
assigning, by the S-BS (102), a weight to the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS, if a distance between the S-BS (102) and a fibre-BS (101) is greater than a distance between the at least one other first S-BS and the fibre-BS (101) ([0388] disclosing “Each node in the network may compute its own bandwidth in and bandwidth out for each of its 1 hop neighbors (e.g. all of the nodes within direct communication range of a transmitter” and “utilizing bandwidth out and bandwidth in to compute node weight; [0160] a BAP may be a network access point with wire-line backhaul capabilities, such as via fiber”, BAP corresponding to the claimed fibre-BS; [0179] disclosing “A link exists if two nodes are within direct communications range of one another. These nodes are called one-hop neighbors.”; Fig. 2A, AP10 representing the S-BS, and AP12 representing the fibre-BS as not being a direct neighbor, all nodes perform this function including when they are not one-hop neighbors of the BAP), , wherein the weight is a product of
a queue length at the S-BS (102) ([0273]);
a difference between the distance from the S-BS (102) to the fibre-BS (101) and the distance between the at least one other first S-BS and the fibre-BS (101) Fig. 2A, AP10 representing the S-BS, and AP12 representing the fibre-BS; [0386]-[0387]); and
a capacity of the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS ([0388]);
activating, by the S-BS (102), the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS, if one of
the weight assigned to the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS is greater than or equal to a weight of a link between the S-BS (102) and all other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) ([0294] disclosing nodes with higher weights win the slots; [0298], [0386], [0387] disclosing use of node weights for each one-hop neighbor to provide channel access to nodes with the most data to transmit);
the link between the S-BS (102) and all the other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) has been deactivated;
the weight assigned to the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS is greater than or equal to a weight of a link between the at least one other first S-BS and all the other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) ([0294] disclosing nodes with higher weights win the slots; [0298], [0386], [0387] disclosing use of node weights for each one-hop neighbor to provide channel access to nodes with the most data to transmit); or
the link between the at least one other first S-BS and all the other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) has been deactivated; and
transmitting packets, by the S-BS (102), from the queue over the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS ([0294] nodes with the higher weight wins the slot; [0387] nodes with the most data to transmit get the channel access), so as to achieve a low average delay in sending the packets from the queues of different S-BSs to a fibre-BS (The broadest reasonable interpretation of this functional language is the intended result of the method and this feature is not given weight in a method claim because it simply expresses the intended result of the positively recited process steps).
Schlicht does not expressly disclose the following; however, Larsson suggests a Shannon capacity ([0008], [0013] equation 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques of Schlicht with the disclosure of Larsson because the teaching lies in Larsson that use of such metrics strives to offer the minimum delay possible while offering the least time resource utilization along a multihop path ([0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Schlicht appears to disclose the method, as claimed in claim 5, wherein the method further comprises deactivating the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS, if the distance between the S-BS (102) and a fibre-BS (101) is not greater than the distance between the at least one other first S-BS and the fibre-BS (101) ([0155] and [0160] disclosing a mobile broadband routable internet (MBRI) comprising mobile a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) or mesh access point (MAP); [0299] disclosing use of open shortest path first which inherently creates routes to neighbors as topologies change (i.e., if a mobile node moves into direct range of the fibre-BS it will update its routing table with an entry to the destination (e.g., fibre-BS) to connect directly to the fibre-BS and it will not maintain the previous entry which is no longer the shortest path).
Regarding claim 8, Schlicht appears to disclose the method, as claimed in claim 5, wherein the method further comprises checking if the link between the S-BS (102) and the at least one other first S-BS is in a pending state ([0273] disclosing the determination is made which node transmits during each time slot (i.e., all nodes are pending transmission)).
Regarding claim 9, Schlicht appears to disclose the method, as claimed in claim 5, wherein the method further comprises forwarding the received packets, by the at least one other first S-BS to the fibre-BS 101 directly or through at least one other S-BS ([0004] disclosing “a mobile ad-hoc network, where any mobile node can communicate with any other node, either directly or through multiple hops across the network topology”).
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s amendment has recited sufficient structure “a processor; a memory coupled to the processor “ to modify the feature of the scheduling module “implemented by the processor executing instructions stored in the memory”; therefore, the claims are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 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.
Further, applicant’s arguments appear to merely contradict examiner’s findings without providing evidence to support said assertions (paragraph encompassing the three bullets in pp 8-9 in the arguments). Such contradictions are insufficient to shift the burden to examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 08 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts, “However, the combination of Schlicht and Larsson fails to disclose or suggest the coordinated self-backhaul scheduling protocol recited in amended independent claim 1, including the specific weight product of original claim 3 (queue length x hop-distance differential to fibre-BS x Shannon capacity), the activation conditions, and the low average delay optimization. By moving the subject matter of original claims 3 and 7 into amended independent claim 1, the claimed invention provides a specific integrated solution that is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art combination. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that the features recited in amended independent claim 1 are neither disclosed nor suggested by Schlicht, Larsson, or any combination thereof.” This assertion merely contradicts examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness without specifically pointing to any evidence to show there is a difference.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant asserts, “Schlicht and Larsson are directed to different technical problems and employ fundamentally different protocol architectures from the presently claimed invention”. Such assertions are just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. (MPEP 2145 I).
Applicant asserts there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Schlicht and Larsson. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the well-reasoned statements pointing to the motivation in the reference of record Larsson. Accordingly, such assertions are not persuasive.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Muhammad et al. (US 2022/0151006 A1) appears to disclose the alternatives in claim 1 “the link between the S-BS (102) and all the other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) has been deactivated; or the link between the at least one other first S-BS and all the other neighbouring S-BSs of the S-BS (102) has been deactivated” (Fig. 12, [0170] the current parent fails). Gossain et al. (US 8,149,717 B2) at Col. 1, lines 43-52 discloses “One characteristic of the nodes is that each node can directly communicate over a short range with nodes which are a single "hop" away. Such nodes are sometimes referred to as "neighbor nodes". When a node transmits packets to a destination node and the nodes are separated by more than one hop (e.g., the distance between two nodes exceeds the radio transmission range of the nodes, or a physical barrier is present between the nodes), the packets can be relayed via intermediate nodes ("multihopping") until the packets reach the destination node.”; Moy, OSPF Version 2, Network Working Group; RFC 2328, April 1998.
Other related disclosures: Nanda et al. (US 2005/0192037 A1); Castagnoli et al. (US 2006/0215582 A1); Yun et al. (US 9,078,286 B1); Bear et al, (US 2009/0028169 A1); Copeland et al. (US 2011/0117852 A1); Chen et al. (US 2018/0302807 A1); Sharma et al. (US 2018/0268720 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM 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, 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights