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
Applicant’s amendments/remarks dated 5/18/2026 to claims 1 – 8 have been considered but they are mooted in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant is advised to cancel claims 9 and 10 because they are directed to non-elected claims from a restriction requirement.
Applicant amends claim 19 to clarify what the symbol of “SCTP” represents in the claims. The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn.
Claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 20 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lagrange et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0056940; hereinafter Lagrange) in view of Barac et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0205795; hereinafter Barac).
Regarding claim 1, Lagrange discloses a communication apparatus, which is a first donor node or included in the first donor node (see Fig. 1, IAB-donor 120), wherein the communication apparatus comprises: memory, configured to store a computer program; and a processor, coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory, to cause the processor (see Fig. 11, para. 0393 – 0406, communication device 1100 includes a central processing unit 1111 coupled to memory 1107 for storing computer programs to be executed…) to perform operations, comprising: generating a first data packet, wherein the first data packet includes first information, and the first information indicates a network segment to which a destination node of the first data packet belongs (see para. 0120, upper layer packets are encapsulated by the BAP sublayer at the IAB-donor DU, thus forming BAP packets or data units…, Fig. 3, format of a BAP data protocol data unit (PDU) or packet, para. 0126, field 306 carries a path ID (ex: first information) identifying the routing BAP path the BAP packet should follow to this destination in the IAB topology), or the first information indicates whether a destination node of the first data packet belongs to a network segment controlled by the first donor node; and sending the first data packet to a first node (see Fig. 1, IAB-donor communicates to IAB station 121); wherein the first information is carried in a backhaul adaptation protocol layer (BAP) layer packet header of the first data packet (see Fig. 3, para. 0126, BAP header 30 includes field 306 that carries a path ID); wherein the first data packet is generated based on a second data packet, wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations including receiving the second data packet (see para. 0120 – 0121, upper layer packets are encapsulated by the BAP sublayer at the IAB-donor DU, thus forming BAP packets or data units).
Lagrange does not disclose the claimed features of: regarding claim 1, wherein the second data packet includes internet protocol (IP) header information, and generating the first information based on the IP header information.
Regarding claim 1, Barac discloses wherein the second data packet includes internet protocol (IP) header information, and generating the first information based on the IP header information (see para. 0221, 0242, If the packet contains the additional IP header, the target donor DU may construct a BAP header for the packet and include, in the BAP header, the BAP Routing ID (includes a BAP destination address and path ID) associated to the IP destination address indicated in the additional IP header…).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lagrange, and have the features, as taught by Barac, in order to provide the inherent multi-beam and MIMO support in NR to reduce cross-link interference between backhaul and access links allowing higher densification, as discussed by Barac (para. 0003).
Regarding claim 2, Lagrange discloses wherein the (BAP) layer packet header of the first data packet includes a routing identifier for carrying the first information (see Fig. 3, para. 0124, BAP header 30 includes Fields 305 and 306 which indicate together the BAP routing ID for the BAP packet and field 306 carries a path ID).
Regarding claim 4, Lagrange discloses wherein the first information is located in a first area of a header of the first data packet, the first data packet further includes second information, and the second information indicates that the first data packet comprises the first information (see Fig. 3, the header 30 includes field 306 which carries path ID (ex: first information), para. 0124, BAP path identity field 306, also referred to as PATH field, is located in the rightmost 10 bits).
Regarding claim 5, Lagrange discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations including: sending routing configuration to the first node, wherein the routing configuration includes information about the first donor node to which the destination node of the first data packet belongs or information about the network segment to which the destination node of the first data packet belongs (see para. 0143 – 0145, The BAP routing configuration of the IAB-node comprises various routing tables, four of which are shown in FIG. 5… Field 501 defines a BAP Routing ID (concatenation of the PATH and DESTINATION fields mentioned above) while field 502 specifies the next-hop BAP Address, i.e. the BAP address of the next IAB-node along the path corresponding to the Routing ID 501).
Regarding claim 6, Lagrange discloses wherein the first information includes an identifier of the first donor node to which the destination node of the first data packet belongs, or an identifier of the network segment to which the destination node of the first data packet belongs (see para. 0126, field 306 carries a path ID identifying the routing BAP path the BAP packet should follow to this destination in the IAB topology).
Lagrange does not disclose the claimed features as recited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 7, Barac discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations including: generating the routing identifier based on the IP header information (see para. 0172 – 0173, 0175, constructing a BAP header for the downlink IP packet where the BAP header includes a BAP routing identifier, ID, associated with one of: a IP destination address indicated in the additional IP header, and an IP destination address indicated in the first IP header).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lagrange, and have the features, as taught by Barac, in order to provide the inherent multi-beam and MIMO support in NR to reduce cross-link interference between backhaul and access links allowing higher densification, as discussed by Barac (para. 0003).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lagrange et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0056940; hereinafter Lagrange) in view of Barac et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0205795; hereinafter Barac) and further in view of Muhammad et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0379792; hereinafter Muhammad).
Lagrange and Barac do not disclose the claimed features as recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, Muhammad discloses wherein the backhaul adaptation protocol layer (BAP) layer packet header of the first data packet includes a reserved bit for carrying the first information (see para. 0210, some of the reserved bits in the BAP header which can be modified (as explained in embodiments described above) in order to signal to the IAB node at the next hop that a local rerouting occurred at the concerned intermediate IAB node).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lagrange and Barac, and have the features, as taught by Muhammad, in order to provide the inherent multi-beam and Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) support in NR to reduce cross-link interference between backhaul and access links, allowing higher densification, as discussed by Muhammad (para. 0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 amendments to claim 11 have been considered and they overcome the cited prior arts. The cited prior arts, taken alone or in combination, do not disclose the claimed features of “wherein the second data packet includes user plane F1 tunnel endpoint information, and generating the first information based on the user plane F1 tunnel endpoint information” as recited in claim 11 when considering the claim as a whole.
Claims 11 – 20 are allowed.
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 Anh Ngoc M Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 270-5139. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, from 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kwang Bin Yao can be reached on ((571) 272-3182. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH NGOC M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights