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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 2020/0187040 A1) in view of Wen (US 2023/0269653 A1).
Tsai teaches performing offloading of an IAB node when congestion is detected either at a link or the node itself. See Fig. 3 recreated below for an exemplary flowchart of the congestion detection and subsequent offloading process. Tsai does not explicitly teach data offloading, so Wen was brought in to teach data offloading for an IAB node.
PNG
media_image1.png
470
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Tsai discloses the below limitation(s): processing circuitry (Tsai [0007] centralized management node includes a processor), configured to:
determine whether uplink transmission of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node satisfies a long term congestion condition (Fig 3 S311 and [0027] IAB-donor receives measurement data … measurement data may include information such as one or a combination of congestion level information; [0028] UE UE1 may periodically perform measurement of channel between node IAB-1 and itself to obtain measurement data);
send an offload request to an IAB donor node when it is determined that the long term congestion condition is satisfied (Fig 3 and [0029] after S311, centralized management node IAB-donor may determine whether at least one of the distributed nodes IAB-1 - IAB-3 makes handover and whether there is congestion occurring at the associated communication channels); and
Tsai does not disclose the below limitation(s): perform data offloading on an egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node according to offload permission information from the IAB donor node.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Wen does disclose the below limitation(s): perform data offloading on an egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node according to offload permission information from the IAB donor node (Wen [0003] IAB node can select a second backhaul path different from a current backhaul path for data, thereby implementing data offloading).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Tsai to include performing data offloading as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to perform data offloading by selecting a second path in order to reduce and/or prevent congestion from occurring on a first path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Tsai discloses the below limitation(s): determining whether uplink transmission of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node satisfies a long term congestion condition (Fig 3 S311 and [0027] IAB-donor receives measurement data … measurement data may include information such as one or a combination of congestion level information; [0028] UE UE1 may periodically perform measurement of channel between node IAB-1 and itself to obtain measurement data);
sending an offload request to an IAB donor node when it is determined that the long term congestion condition is satisfied (Fig 3 and [0029] after S311, centralized management node IAB-donor may determine whether at least one of the distributed nodes IAB-1 - IAB-3 makes handover and whether there is congestion occurring at the associated communication channels); and
Tsai does not disclose the below limitation(s): performing data offloading on an egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node according to offload permission information from the IAB donor node.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Wen does disclose the below limitation(s): performing data offloading on an egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node according to offload permission information from the IAB donor node (Wen [0003] IAB node can select a second backhaul path different from a current backhaul path for data, thereby implementing data offloading).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Tsai to include performing data offloading as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to perform data offloading by selecting a second path in order to reduce and/or prevent congestion from occurring on a first path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 20, Tsai and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 18.
Tsai further discloses the below limitation(s):when being executed by a processor (Tsai [0007] centralized management node includes a processor), cause the processor to perform the wireless communication method according to claim 18 (see Claim 18 above).
Tsai does not disclose the below limitation(s): A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the executable instructions, when being executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the wireless communication method according to claim 18.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Wen does disclose the below limitation(s): A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the executable instructions, when being executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the wireless communication method according to claim 18 (Wen Fig 10 device 1000 comprising processor 1001 and memory 1002; see also Fig 11; see also Claim 18 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned wireless communication method to include performing the methods on a device comprising a processor and memory as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to perform the methods on a typical wireless device for the sake of interoperability with existing standards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 2020/0187040 A1) in view of Hasegawa (US 2022/0022116 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsai discloses the below limitation(s): processing circuitry (Tsai [0007] centralized management node includes a processor), configured to:
receive an offload request from an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (Fig 3 and [0029] after S311, centralized management node IAB-donor may determine whether at least one of the distributed nodes IAB-1 - IAB-3 makes handover and whether there is congestion occurring at the associated communication channels),
wherein the offload request is sent when uplink transmission of the IAB node satisfies a long term congestion condition (Fig 3 S311 and [0027] IAB-donor receives measurement data … measurement data may include information such as one or a combination of congestion level information; [0028] UE UE1 may periodically perform measurement of channel between node IAB-1 and itself to obtain measurement data);
Tsai does not disclose the below limitation(s): determine, in response to the offload request, whether to permit the IAB node to perform data offloading on an egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node; and
send offload permission information to the IAB node based on a result of the determining.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Hasegawa does disclose the below limitation(s): receive an offload request from an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (Hasegawa Fig 4 S102 request handover; [0101] BS 100a that is an IAB donor receives a report on the measurement result and transmits a handover request to new base station IAB donor 100b),
determine, in response to the offload request, whether to permit the IAB node to perform data offloading on an egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node (Fig 4 S105 has predetermined time period elapsed?); and
send offload permission information to the IAB node based on a result of the determining (Fig 4 If S105 has predetermined time period elapsed? is Yes (i.e. permitted), S106 transmit IAB information to IAB node targeted for handover; [0101] base station performs the handover and transmits a response including the information related to the new topology together with permission of the handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Tsai to include determining whether or not to permit offloading at an IAB node as taught by Hasegawa. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to determine whether or not to permit offloading in order to facilitate congestion control by a network administrator via some metric, for example a time period as taught by Hasegawa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai and Hasegawa to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Tsai discloses the below limitation(s): receiving an offload request from an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (Tsai Fig 3 and [0029] after S311, centralized management node IAB-donor may determine whether at least one of the distributed nodes IAB-1 - IAB-3 makes handover and whether there is congestion occurring at the associated communication channels),
wherein the offload request is sent when uplink transmission of the IAB node satisfies a long term congestion condition (Fig 3 S311 and [0027] IAB-donor receives measurement data … measurement data may include information such as one or a combination of congestion level information; [0028] UE UE1 may periodically perform measurement of channel between node IAB-1 and itself to obtain measurement data);
Tsai does not disclose the below limitation(s): determining, in response to the offload request, whether to permit the IAB node to perform data offloading on an egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node; and
sending offload permission information to the IAB node based on a result of the determining.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Hasegawa does disclose the below limitation(s): receiving an offload request from an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (Hasegawa Fig 4 S102 request handover; [0101] BS 100a that is an IAB donor receives a report on the measurement result and transmits a handover request to new base station IAB donor 100b),
determining, in response to the offload request, whether to permit the IAB node to perform data offloading on an egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node (Fig 4 S105 has predetermined time period elapsed?); and
sending offload permission information to the IAB node based on a result of the determining (Fig 4 If S105 is Yes (i.e. permitted), S106 transmit IAB information to IAB node targeted for handover; [0101] base station performs the handover and transmits a response including the information related to the new topology together with permission of the handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Tsai to include determining whether or not to permit offloading at an IAB node as taught by Hasegawa. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to determine whether or not to permit offloading in order to facilitate congestion control by a network administrator via some metric, for example a time period as taught by Hasegawa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai and Hasegawa to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Wen and further in view of Malkamaki (US 2020/0015147 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsai and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Wen further discloses the below limitation(s): the data offloading comprises transmitting data of the uplink transmission of the IAB node through a main transmission path via the first parent node and an auxiliary transmission path via the second parent node (Wen [0003] IAB node can select a second backhaul path different from a current backhaul path for data, thereby implementing data offloading).
Tsai and Wen do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the IAB node supports dual connectivity and has a first parent node and a second parent node;
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Malkamaki does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the IAB node supports dual connectivity (Malkamaki [0043] trigger (i.e. to adapt to congestion) may be a change of connection by at least one dual-connected network entity) and has a first parent node and a second parent node (Fig 4 wherein source network entity 420 (i.e. IAB node) which has at least two parent network entities 430 (i.e. IAB parent nodes));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include the wireless device being dual capable as taught by Malkamaki. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable dual capable devices to take advantage of the congestion control and offloading mechanism described in Claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Wen and Malkamaki to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Tsai, Wen and Malkamaki disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 2.
Wen further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the offload request comprises information for indicating a transmission rate at which the IAB node expects to perform uplink transmission through the auxiliary transmission path (Wen [0042]-[0043] IAB node receiving the flow control feedback controls a transmission rate for sending downstream data to the child IAB node, wherein examiner interprets the flow control feedback as indicating an expected rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include indicating a rate during a flow control procedure as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to indicate an expected flow rate in order to prevent congestion caused by a flow exceeding the indicated threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Wen and Malkamaki to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Tsai, Wen and Malkamaki disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 2.
Wen further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the data offloading according to offload configuration information from the IAB donor node (Wen [0087] first communications node receives identification information sent by the second communications node, where the identification information is used to indicate a backhaul path selected for transmitting a packet … first communications node can select an available path from the available backhaul paths for data offloading).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include performing data offloading when congestion is detected as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload data to a different link in order to reduce congestion on the initial link. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Wen and Malkamaki to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsai, Wen and Malkamaki disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 4.
Wen further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the offload configuration information comprises one or more of:
…
offload rate information for indicating a maximum transmission rate at which the IAB node performs uplink transmission through the auxiliary transmission path (Wen [0042]-[0043] IAB node receiving the flow control feedback controls a transmission rate for sending downstream data to the child IAB node); and
… (alternative limitation(s) not considered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include indicating a rate for a given link during offloading as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload data to a different link in order to reduce congestion on the initial link. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Wen and Malkamaki to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Wen and further in view of Liu (US 2023/0262508 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsai and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Tsai further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the second congestion standard indicates more severe congestion than the first congestion standard (Tsai [0065] IAB-donor may detect a link congestion (i.e. a congestion level is "high") between IAB-1 and UE1 according to the measurement data; see also [0068] for "high" congestion detection of a node).
Tsai and Wen do not disclose the below limitation(s): a duration in which a first congestion standard is satisfied is greater than or equal to a first predetermined time period; or the number of times for which a second congestion standard is satisfied in a second predetermined time period is greater than or equal to a predetermined number of times,
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Liu does disclose the below limitation(s): a duration in which a first congestion standard is satisfied is greater than or equal to a first predetermined time period; or the number of times for which a second congestion standard is satisfied in a second predetermined time period is greater than or equal to a predetermined number of times (Liu [0061] congestion of the uplink [of an IAB node] may be determined based on an amount of uplink data for transmission exceeding a preset threshold),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include detecting congestion based on the amount of data exceeding a threshold as taught by Liu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to detect congestion based on a threshold so that QoS on the network can be maintained. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Wen and Liu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Tsai, Wen and Liu disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 6.
Tsai further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the first congestion standard and/or the second congestion standard is related to a load condition of the uplink transmission of the IAB node and/or a link quality of the egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node (Tsai [0065] IAB-donor may detect a link congestion (i.e. a congestion level is "high") between IAB-1 and UE1 according to the measurement data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to categorize different congestion levels and identify a “high” congestion level as taught by Liu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to categorize congestion according to different levels so limited resources can be used for “high” congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Wen and Liu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Hasegawa, Malkamaki and further in view of Wen.
Regarding Claim 9, Tsai and Hasegawa disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 8.
Tsai and Hasegawa do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the IAB node supports dual connectivity and has a first parent node and a second parent node; and
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Malkamaki does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the IAB node supports dual connectivity (Malkamaki [0043] trigger (i.e. to adapt to congestion) may be a change of connection by at least one dual-connected network entity) and has a first parent node and a second parent node (Fig 4 wherein source network entity 420 (i.e. IAB node) which has at least two parent network entities 430 (i.e. IAB parent nodes));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include enabling a dual capable advice to take advantage to use offloading for congestion control at an IAB node as taught by Malkamaki. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to perform offloading of a dual capable device to reduce congestion.
Tsai, Hasegawa and Malkamaki do not disclose the below limitation(s): the data offloading comprises transmitting data of the uplink transmission of the IAB node through a main transmission path via the first parent node and an auxiliary transmission path via the second parent node.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Wen does disclose the below limitation(s): the data offloading comprises transmitting data of the uplink transmission of the IAB node through a main transmission path via the first parent node and an auxiliary transmission path via the second parent node (Wen [0003] IAB node can select a second backhaul path different from a current backhaul path for data, thereby implementing data offloading).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include performing congestion control by using data offloading as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to reduce congestion at a particular link/path by performing data offloading to a second link/path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Tsai, Hasegawa and Malkamaki do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the offload request comprises information for indicating a transmission rate at which the IAB node expects to perform uplink transmission through the auxiliary transmission path.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Wen does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the offload request comprises information for indicating a transmission rate at which the IAB node expects to perform uplink transmission through the auxiliary transmission path (Wen [0042]-[0043] IAB node receiving the flow control feedback controls a transmission rate for sending downstream data to the child IAB node, wherein examiner interprets the flow control feedback as indicating an expected rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include indicating a transmission rate for a link during congestion control as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to indicate a threshold transmission rate in order to identify congestion when that rate is exceeded. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Tsai, Hasegawa and Malkamaki do not disclose the below limitation(s): obtain, in response to the offload request, path condition information of the auxiliary transmission path from the second parent node.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Wen does disclose the below limitation(s): obtain, in response to the offload request, path condition information of the auxiliary transmission path from the second parent node (Wen [0007] configuration module is configured to configure backhaul path identification information based on the link state information, which examiner is interpreting as "path condition information", where the backhaul path identification information is used to indicate a backhaul path selected for transmitting a data packet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include determine whether or not to permit offloading based on path information as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use path information to determine that a link is congested and perform offloading to a different path for congestion control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Tsai, Hasegawa and Malkamaki do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the path condition information indicates a load condition of the second parent node and/or a link quality of an access link from the IAB node to the second parent node.
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Wen does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the path condition information indicates a load condition of the second parent node and/or a link quality of an access link from the IAB node to the second parent node (Wen [0007] configuration module is configured to configure backhaul path identification information based on the link state information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include determining whether or not to perform offloading based on link information as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to identify that a particular link in a path is congested and subsequently offload the data to a different link for congestion control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Hasegawa further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether to permit the data offloading based on the path condition information (Hasegawa Fig 4 If S105 has predetermined time period elapsed? is Yes (i.e. permitted), S106 transmit IAB information to IAB node targeted for handover; [0101] base station performs the handover and transmits a response including the information related to the new topology together with permission of the handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include determining whether or not to permit offloading at an IAB node as taught by Hasegawa. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to perform congestion control based on path condition information in order to prevent unnecessary offloading. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 14, Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Hasegawa further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: provide offload configuration information for the IAB node when it is determined to permit the data offloading (Hasegawa Fig 4 If S105 has predetermined time period elapsed? is Yes (i.e. permitted), S106 transmit IAB information to IAB node targeted for handover; [0101] base station performs the handover and transmits a response including the information related to the new topology together with permission of the handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include provide information to determine whether or not to permit offloading as taught by Hasegawa. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to only perform offloading when necessary in order to save network resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 14.
Tsai, Hasegawa and Malkamaki do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the offload configuration information comprises one or more of:
…
offload rate information for indicating a maximum transmission rate at which the IAB node performs uplink transmission through the auxiliary transmission path; and
…
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Wen does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the offload configuration information comprises one or more of:
…
offload rate information for indicating a maximum transmission rate at which the IAB node performs uplink transmission through the auxiliary transmission path (Wen [0042]-[0043] IAB node receiving the flow control feedback controls a transmission rate for sending downstream data to the child IAB node); and
… (alternative limitation(s) not considered)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include indicating a rate for a given link during offloading as taught by Wen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload data to a different link in order to reduce congestion on the initial link. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa, Malkamaki and Wen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Hasegawa and further in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 16, Tsai and Hasegawa and Liu disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 8.
Tsai further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the second congestion standard indicates more severe congestion than the first congestion standard (Tsai [0065] IAB-donor may detect a link congestion (i.e. a congestion level is "high") between IAB-1 and UE1 according to the measurement data; see also [0068] for "high" congestion detection of a node).
Tsai and Hasegawa do not disclose the below limitation(s): a duration in which a first congestion standard is satisfied is greater than or equal to a first predetermined time period; or the number of times for which a second congestion standard is satisfied in a second predetermined time period is greater than or equal to a predetermined number of times,
In the same field of endeavor of IAB node offloading, Liu does disclose the below limitation(s): a duration in which a first congestion standard is satisfied is greater than or equal to a first predetermined time period; or the number of times for which a second congestion standard is satisfied in a second predetermined time period is greater than or equal to a predetermined number of times (Liu [0061] congestion of the uplink [of an IAB node] may be determined based on an amount of uplink data for transmission exceeding a preset threshold),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to include determining congestion based on a number of transmissions exceeding a threshold as taught by Liu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to identify congestion based on a preset threshold in order to perform congestion control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa and Liu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Tsai, Hasegawa and Liu disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 16.
Tsai further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the first congestion standard and/or the second congestion standard is related to a load condition of the uplink transmission of the IAB node and/or a link quality of the egress link of the uplink transmission of the IAB node (Tsai [0065] IAB-donor may detect a link congestion (i.e. a congestion level is "high") between IAB-1 and UE1 according to the measurement data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned electronic device to categorize different congestion levels and identify a “high” congestion level as taught by Liu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to categorize congestion according to different levels so limited resources can be used for “high” congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai, Hasegawa and Liu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412