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
The amendment filed on 12-24-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE et al (Further considerations on inter-donor IAB Node Migration procedure) in view of Hari et al (US 2016/0028625).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17. ZTE discloses a first network node in communication with a second network node and a first integrated access and backhaul, IAB, node which is in communication with a second IAB node (see at least figure 1), the first network node being associated with a first address indicator and comprising processing circuitry configured to: detect a need for a traffic migration of traffic routed via the first IAB node, the traffic migration being from the first network node to the second network node (see at least figure 6); in response to the detecting, send a request to the second network node; receive, from the second network node in response to the request, a second address indicator associated with the first IAB node (see at least section 2.1.1); cause transmission of an instruction to the first IAB node, the instruction being associated with the traffic migration and configured to cause the first IAB node modify a downlink, DL, packet prior to routing the DL packet to the second IAB node or modify an uplink, UL, packet originating from the second IAB node prior to routing the UL packet (see at least 2.1.2); and at least one of: cause transmission of the DL packet to the second network node, the DL packet being destined for the second IAB node and being routed via the first IAB node, the DL packet including the first address indicator and the second address indicator (see at least section 4); and receive the UL packet from the second network node, the received UL packet originating from the second IAB node and being routed via the first IAB node (see at least section 2.1.2).
ZTE discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that an additional IP address header being added to the packet. However, Hari, from the same field of endeavor, teaches an additional IP address header being added to the packet (see at least paragraph [0002]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Hari, as indicated, into the communication method of ZTE for the purpose of configuring a specific pack for the packet.
Regarding claims 2 and 10. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first network node wherein: the first address indicator is at least one of: an internet protocol, IP, address associated with the first network node, and an IP address associated with the second IAB node; and the second address indicator is at least one of: an IP address associated with the second network node, and an IP address associated with the first IAB node (see at least section 2.1.2).
Regarding claims 3 and 11. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first network node wherein the instruction is configured to cause the first IAB node to modify the DL packet by removing the second address indicator from the DL packet (see at least section 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 12. ZTE discloses a first network node wherein the causing transmission of the DL packet includes: generating a first internet protocol, IP, header, in the DL packet, the first IP header being based on the first address indicator; generating a second IP header, the second IP header being based on the second address indicator; and appending the second IP header to the first IP header in the DL packet (see at least section 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 13. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first network node wherein the instruction is configured to cause the first IAB node to modify the DL packet by removing the second IP header from the DL packet (see at least section 3).
Regarding claims 6 and 14. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first network node wherein the UL packet includes a first internet protocol, IP, header based on the first address indicator, the instruction being configured to cause the first IAB node to modify the UL packet by: generating a second IP header based on at least one of the instruction and the second address indicator; and appending the second IP header to the first IP header in the UL packet (see at least section 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 15. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first network node wherein the processing circuitry of the first network node is further configured to: subsequent to receiving the UL packet, cause the second IP header to be removed from the received UL packet (see at least section 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 16. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first network node wherein the instruction includes a mapping of internet protocol, IP, addresses to corresponding Backhaul Adaptation Protocol, BAP, routing identifiers, the instruction being configured to cause the first IAB node to at least one of: modify the UL packet by: removing a first BAP header from the UL packet based on a BAP routing identifier of the first BAP header being associated with the first network node; generating a second BAP header based on the mapping; and appending the second BAP header to the UL packet; and modify the DL packet by: generating a BAP header based on the mapping; and appending the BAP header to the DL packet (see at least section 4).
Regarding claim 18. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first IAB node wherein the first address indicator is at least one of: an internet protocol, IP, address associated with the first network node, and an IP address associated with the second IAB node; and the second address indicator is at least one of: an IP address associated with the second network node, and an IP address associated with the first IAB node (see at least section 4).
Regarding claim 19. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first IAB node wherein the instruction includes a mapping of internet protocol, IP, addresses to corresponding Backhaul Adaptation Protocol, BAP, routing identifiers, the modifying further including: generating a BAP header based on the mapping; and appending the BAP header to the DL packet (see at least sections 4-5).
Regarding claim 20. ZTE in view of Hari discloses a first IAB node wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: discard the DL packet based on at least one of: the second address indicator not being associated with the first IAB node, and the first address indicator not being associated with at least one of: the first IAB node, and a destination address associated with the first IAB node (see at least sections 4-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476