DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6 of claim 9, “a quantity of occurrence of the RACH” should be corrected to “a quantity of occurrences of the RACH”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, the intended scope of the limitation “optimize a coverage of the IAB network based at least in part on the radio link quality” is unclear. The specification, indicates that it is an example of modifying the topography of the IAB network and further lists an example of this optimization as causing an IAB node to transition from an active state to an inactive state or from an inactive state to an active state (see [0109] and [0115] of Applicant’s specification, for example). It is unclear what other network optimization is intended to be covered by this phrase. Examiner recommends that Applicant amend this limitation to more specific language such as that in [0109] and [0115] which discusses the state change of an IAB node.
Further, claims 27 and 29 also include the limitation “optimize a capacity of the IAB network” that is claimed distinct and in contrast from the limitation “optimize a coverage of the IAB network”. The intended distinction between these two limitations is unclear. The specification does not include detail to distinguish the difference between the intended scope of these two claim limitations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9-19, 29-34, and 36-42 of U.S. Patent No. 11,729,697 (herein called “the ’697 Patent”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application are broader than claims in the ’697 Patent.
Regarding claim 1 of the present application: claim 1 of the ’697 Patent discloses an apparatus of a central or management entity of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, comprising (see 39:7-8):
a memory (see 39:9); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (see 39:10-11):
receive a report indicating one or more of a failure associated with a communication link associated with an IAB node included in the IAB network or a quality of service (QoS) associated with the communication link (see 39:12-16);
modify a topography of the IAB network or routing within the IAB network when the report indicates the failure associated with the communication link (see 39:56-58); and
verify a QoS associated with the communication link when the report indicates the QoS associated with the communication link (see 39:59-61).
Thus, claim 1 of the ’697 Patent contains every element and thus anticipates claim 1 of the present application. Claim 1 of the present application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting. A later claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Stated another way, claim 1 of the present application is a broader version of claim 1 of the ’697 Patent in that it omits one or more elements of claim 1 of the ’697 Patent. Omission of an element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22 of the present application: claim 36 of the ’697 Patent discloses an apparatus of a central or management entity of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, comprising (see 42:63-64):
a memory (see 42:65); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (see 42:66-67):
receive a report indicating a radio link quality between an IAB distributed unit (DU) and an IAB mobile terminal (MT) associated with an IAB node (see 43:1-3); and
cause, based on the radio link quality between the IAB DU and the IAB MT, the IAB node to transition from an active state to an inactive state or the IAB node to transition from the inactive state to the active state based at least in part on the radio link quality (see 43:27-31).
Thus, claim 36 of the ’697 Patent contains every element and thus anticipates claim 22 of the present application. Claim 22 of the present application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting. A later claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Stated another way, claim 22 of the present application is a broader version of claim 36 of the ’697 Patent in that it omits one or more elements of claim 36 of the ’697 Patent. Omission of an element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24 of the present application: claim 38 of the ’697 Patent discloses an apparatus of a central or management entity of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, comprising (see 43:43-44):
a memory (see 43:45); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (see 43:46-47):
receive a report indicating a radio link quality between an IAB distributed unit (DU) and an IAB mobile terminal (MT) associated with an IAB node (see 43:48-50); and
modify, based on the radio link quality between the IAB DU and the IAB MT, a routing of data through the IAB network (see 44:7-9).
Thus, claim 38 of the ’697 Patent contains every element and thus anticipates claim 24 of the present application. Claim 24 of the present application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting. A later claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Stated another way, claim 24 of the present application is a broader version of claim 38 of the ’697 Patent in that it omits one or more elements of claim 38 of the ’697 Patent. Omission of an element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26 of the present application: claim 40 of the ’697 Patent discloses an apparatus of a central or management entity of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, comprising (see 44:20-21):
a memory (see 44:22); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (see 44:23-24):
receive a report indicating a radio link quality between an IAB distributed unit (DU) and an IAB mobile terminal (MT) associated with an IAB node (see 44:25-27); and
optimize a coverage of the IAB network based at least in part on the radio link quality (see 44:51-52).
Thus, claim 40 of the ’697 Patent contains every element and thus anticipates claim 26 of the present application. Claim 26 of the present application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is unpatentable under obviousness-type double patenting. A later claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Stated another way, claim 26 of the present application is a broader version of claim 40 of the ’697 Patent in that it omits one or more elements of claim 40 of the ’697 Patent. Omission of an element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2 of the present application: claim 2 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 40:19-30) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 3 of the present application: claim 1 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 39:18-29) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 4 of the present application: claim 1 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 39:62-67) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 5 of the present application: claim 3 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 40:31-37) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 6 of the present application: claim 1 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 39:59-61 and 40:8-18) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 7 of the present application: claim 4 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 40:38-46) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 8 of the present application: claim 5 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 40:47-53) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 9 of the present application: claim 9 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 40:62–41:4) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 10 of the present application: claim 10 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 41:5-9) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 11 of the present application: claim 1 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 39:35-38) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 12 of the present application: claim 11 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 41:10-24) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 13 of the present application: claim 12 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 41:25-38) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 14 of the present application: claim 13 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 41:39-44) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 15 of the present application: claim 14 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 41:45-47) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 16 of the present application: claim 15 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 41:48-54) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 17 of the present application: claim 16 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 41:55-59) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 18 of the present application: claim 17 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 41:60–42:2) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 19 of the present application: claims 29-34 of the ’697 Patent disclose the claim limitations (see 42:40-57) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 20 of the present application: claim 18 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 42:3-8) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 21 of the present application: claim 19 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 42:9-11) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 23 of the present application: claim 37 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 43:32-42) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 25 of the present application: claim 39 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 44:10-19) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 27 of the present application: claim 41 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 44:53-56) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 28 of the present application: claim 42 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 44:57-60) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 29 of the present application: claim 43 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 44:61–45:6) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 30 of the present application: claim 44 of the ’697 Patent discloses the claim limitations (see 45:7-10) and thus the claim is similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wen et al (US 20220255689).
Regarding claim 1: Wen discloses an apparatus of a central or management entity of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, comprising:
a memory (see memory 1103 of Figure 11); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (see processor 1101 of Figure 11):
receive a report indicating one or more of a failure associated with a communication link associated with an IAB node included in the IAB network or a quality of service (QoS) associated with the communication link (disclosed throughout; see [0059]-[0068], for example, which discloses that the donor node receives a first failure report that includes a failure indication of a first link associated with an IAB node; further, although claimed in the alternative and thus not required to meet the claim, this message may also include QoS information associated with the link (link quality information));
modify a topography of the IAB network or routing within the IAB network when the report indicates the failure associated with the communication link (disclosed throughout; see also [0144]-[0145], for example, which discloses that the donor node may modify the topology of the network based on the first failure report); and
verify a QoS associated with the communication link when the report indicates the QoS associated with the communication link (claimed in the alternative and thus not required to meet the claim).
Regarding claim 24: Wen discloses an apparatus of a central or management entity of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, comprising:
a memory (see memory 1103 of Figure 11); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (see processor 1101 of Figure 11):
receive a report indicating a radio link quality between an IAB distributed unit (DU) and an IAB mobile terminal (MT) associated with an IAB node (disclosed throughout; see [0059]-[0068], for example, which discloses that the donor node receives a first failure report that includes a failure indication of a first link associated with an IAB node; the report includes a radio link quality (interpreted as either the link quality information or the indication of a failure); the link is between an IAB DU and an IAB MT associated with an IAB node as indicated in Figures 1 and 7, for example); and
modify, based on the radio link quality between the IAB DU and the IAB MT, a routing of data through the IAB network (disclosed throughout; see also [0144]-[0145], for example, which discloses that the donor node may modify the topology of the network based on the first failure report, which changes the routing of data through the network).
Regarding claim 2: Wen discloses the limitations wherein the report includes one or more of:
a radio link failure (RLF) report indicating an RLF between an IAB distributed unit (DU) and an IAB mobile terminal (MT) (see [0062], for example),
cell group failure information indicating a radio issue between a secondary IAB DU and a secondary IAB MT,
a radio access (RA) report indicating a status of an RA procedure between the IAB DU and the IAB MT, or
a connection establishment failure report indicating one or more connection establishment failure attempts by the IAB MT.
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.
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.
Claims 7, 22, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (US 20220255689) in view of Hwang et al (US 2022/0007212).
Regarding claim 22: Wen discloses an apparatus of a central or management entity of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, comprising:
a memory (see memory 1103 of Figure 11); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (see processor 1101 of Figure 11):
receive a report indicating a radio link quality between an IAB distributed unit (DU) and an IAB mobile terminal (MT) associated with an IAB node (disclosed throughout; see [0059]-[0068], for example, which discloses that the donor node receives a first failure report that includes a failure indication of a first link associated with an IAB node; the report includes a radio link quality (interpreted as either the link quality information or the indication of a failure); the link is between an IAB DU and an IAB MT associated with an IAB node as indicated in Figures 1 and 7, for example).
Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitation cause, based on the radio link quality between the IAB DU and the IAB MT, the IAB node to transition from an active state to an inactive state or the IAB node to transition from the inactive state to the active state based at least in part on the radio link quality. However, Hwang discloses (see Figure 1K and [0173]-[0175], for example) causing the IAB node associated with the MT (IAB1) to transition from an active state to an inactive (idle) state based in part on the radio link quality between the IAB MT and IAB DU (the radio link failure (RLF) is based in part on radio link quality; in particular, see steps 1k-110 and 1k-115, which indicate that the IAB node moves to an idle/disabled stated based in part on radio link quality). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen to move the IAB node to an inactive/idle state when the upstream radio link fails. The rationale for doing so would have been to prevent the downstream nodes from connecting to the node with the failed link as suggested throughout Hwang.
Regarding claim 26: Wen discloses an apparatus of a central or management entity of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, comprising:
a memory (see memory 1103 of Figure 11); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (see processor 1101 of Figure 11):
receive a report indicating a radio link quality between an IAB distributed unit (DU) and an IAB mobile terminal (MT) associated with an IAB node (disclosed throughout; see [0059]-[0068], for example, which discloses that the donor node receives a first failure report that includes a failure indication of a first link associated with an IAB node; the report includes a radio link quality (interpreted as either the link quality information or the indication of a failure); the link is between an IAB DU and an IAB MT associated with an IAB node as indicated in Figures 1 and 7, for example).
Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitation optimize a coverage of the IAB network based at least in part on the radio link quality. First, based on [0108] and [0114] of Applicant’s specification, this limitation is interpreted to mean causing the IAB node to transition from an active state to an inactive state or from an inactive state to an active state. Hwang discloses (see Figure 1K and [0173]-[0175], for example) causing the IAB node associated with the MT (IAB1) to transition from an active state to an inactive (idle) state based in part on the radio link quality between the IAB MT and IAB DU (the radio link failure (RLF) is based in part on radio link quality; in particular, see steps 1k-110 and 1k-115, which indicate that the IAB node moves to an idle/disabled stated based in part on radio link quality). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen to move the IAB node to an inactive/idle state when the upstream radio link fails. The rationale for doing so would have been to prevent the downstream nodes from connecting to the node with the failed link as suggested throughout Hwang.
Regarding claim 7: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 7 that the one or more processors, to modify the topography of the IAB network or the routing within the IAB network when the report indicates the failure associated with the communication link, are configured to: transmit an indication to the IAB node to transition from an active state to an inactive state based at least in part on the report indicating the failure associated with the communication link. However, Hwang discloses (see Figure 1K and [0173]-[0175], for example) causing the IAB node associated with the MT (IAB1) to transition from an active state to an inactive (idle) state based in part on the radio link quality between the IAB MT and IAB DU (the radio link failure (RLF) is based in part on radio link quality; in particular, see steps 1k-110 and 1k-115, which indicate that the IAB node moves to an idle/disabled stated based in part on radio link quality). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen to move the IAB node to an inactive/idle state when the upstream radio link fails. The rationale for doing so would have been to prevent the downstream nodes from connecting to the node with the failed link as suggested throughout Hwang.
Regarding claim 27: Wen, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 26 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 27 that the one or more processors are further configured to: optimize a capacity of the IAB network based at least in part on the radio link quality. First, based on Applicant’s specification (see [0109] and [0115] of Applicant’s specification, for example, which lists optimization and transitioning from/to active to/from inactive as an example of topography modification and indicate), this limitation is interpreted to mean causing the IAB node to transition from an active state to an inactive state or from an inactive state to an active state. Hwang discloses (see Figure 1K and [0173]-[0175], for example) causing the IAB node associated with the MT (IAB1) to transition from an active state to an inactive (idle) state based in part on the radio link quality between the IAB MT and IAB DU (the radio link failure (RLF) is based in part on radio link quality; in particular, see steps 1k-110 and 1k-115, which indicate that the IAB node moves to an idle/disabled stated based in part on radio link quality). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen to move the IAB node to an inactive/idle state when the upstream radio link fails. The rationale for doing so would have been to prevent the downstream nodes from connecting to the node with the failed link as suggested throughout Hwang.
Regarding claim 28: Wen, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 26 as indicated above. Wen further discloses the limitation that the one or more processors are further configured to: minimize interference within the IAB network based at least in part on the radio link quality. In particular, Wen discloses that one of the measurements used to monitor a radio link in the IAB network involves measuring a signal to interference plus noise ratio (see [0043]). For a radio link to remain functional, this ratio is to remain above a threshold (see also [0043]). Thus, the system of Wen is changing the system to minimize interference (reduce the denominator of the ratio) in order that the ratio does not fall below a threshold value.
Regarding claim 29: Wen, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 26 as indicated above. Wen further discloses the limitations that the report includes additional information indicating one or more of: an IAB DU resource configuration, an IAB DU cell specific signal allocation, an IAB donor node associated with the IAB node, an IAB parent node associated with the IAB node, or a location of the IAB node, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: optimize the coverage of the IAB network further based at least in part on the additional information, or optimize a capacity of the IAB network based at least in part on the additional information (as indicated throughout, the failure report includes information about the IAB parent node of the IAB node (see [0061], [0064], and [0065], for example, which all indicate information that require indicating the parent IAB node); further, in the combination, the information in the failure report (including the information about the IAB parent node) is used to optimize the coverage by informing when the transition from the active/inactive to the inactive/active states should occur). Although Wen does not explicitly disclose the optimization of capacity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen to move the IAB node to an inactive/idle state when the upstream radio link fails and to make the decision in part based on the link quality or failure status of the link with the parent node. The rationale for doing so would have been to prevent the downstream nodes from connecting to the node with the failed link as suggested throughout Hwang.
Regarding claim 30: Wen, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 29 as indicated above. Wen further discloses the limitation that the one or more processors are further configured to: minimize interference within the IAB network based at least in part on the radio link quality. In particular, Wen discloses that one of the measurements used to monitor a radio link in the IAB network involves measuring a signal to interference plus noise ratio (see [0043]). For a radio link to remain functional, this ratio is to remain above a threshold (see also [0043]). Thus, the system of Wen is changing the system to minimize interference (reduce the denominator of the ratio) in order that the ratio does not fall below a threshold value.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (US 20220255689) in view of Zhu et al (US 2024/0073971).
Regarding claim 3: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 3 that the report includes one or more of an indication of a volume of data associated with the IAB node, an indication of a user equipment (UE) downlink throughput associated with the IAB node, an indication of a UE uplink throughput associated with the IAB node, an indication of a radio access network (RAN) downlink delay associated with the IAB node, an indication of a RAN uplink delay associated with the JAB node, or an indication of a packet loss rate associated with the IAB node. However, Zhu discloses transmitting a report including an indication of a volume of data associated with the IAB (see [0358] – “an MT part of the IAB node reports a BSR to a parent node, to notify the parent node of a data volume of a to-be-sent uplink data packet. The BSR may be considered as a manner in which a child node requests an uplink scheduling resource from a parent node, so that a DU part of the parent node allocates an uplink transmission resource to the child node. In the BSR reported by the IAB node to the parent node, the buffered data volume is reported by using an LCG as a granularity”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wen to include information relating to a data volume of the IAB node as suggested by Zhu. The rationale for doing so would have been to inform the parent node of the expected traffic load when determining how to modify the network configuration and thus enable a more informed re-configuration of the network resources.
Claims 5, 9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (US 20220255689) in view of Pantelidou et al (GB 2591125).
Regarding claim 5: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 5 that the report includes one or more of: an indication that the report is associated with an IAB mobile terminal (MT) of the IAB network, a radio access channel (RACH) parameter associated with the IAB node, or user equipment (UE) history information that is collected by the IAB node. However, Pantelidou discloses that it is known to include a RACH report as part of a RLF report (see 18:15-16, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wen to include at least RACH parameters such as that in a RACH report as part of the failure report in Wen. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide information regarding why the failure occurred, such as RACH information as suggested by Pantelidou.
Regarding claim 9: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 9 that the report indicates one or more of: whether a radio access channel (RACH) is received on a non-available resource, a quantity of occurrences of the RACH being received on the non-available resource, a quantity of occurrences of the RACH being received on a soft resource, or a quantity of occurrence of the RACH being received on a hard resource. However, Pantelidou discloses that it is known to include a RACH report as part of a RLF report (see 18:15-16, for example). Pantelidou further discloses that the RACH report includes information to determine a RACH failure rate and thus indicates at least whether a RACH is received on the failed/non-available resource as well as a quantity of occurrences of the RACH on this resource (see 22:14-18, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wen to include at least RACH parameters such as that in a RACH report as part of the failure report in Wen. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide information regarding why the failure occurred, such as RACH information as suggested by Pantelidou.
Regarding claim 16: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 16 that the report indicates one or more of: cell identity information associated with the IAB node, a backhaul adaptation protocol (BAP) routing identifier associated with the IAB node, or an IAB radio link control (RLC) logical channel associated with the IAB node. However, Pantelidou discloses that it is known to include a RACH report as part of a RLF report (see 18:15-16, for example). Pantelidou further discloses that the RACH report may also include information about the cell location of the RACH failures (see 18:15-22, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wen to include at least RACH parameters such as that in a RACH report as well as the cell location as part of the failure report in Wen. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide information regarding why and where the failure occurred, such as RACH information and location (cell identity) as suggested by Pantelidou.
Regarding claim 18: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 5 that the report indicates one or more of: a metric associated with a 2-step random access channel (RACH) procedure performed by the IAB node, a metric associated with a 4-step RACH procedure performed by the IAB node, a metric associated with a contention-based RA (CBRA) procedure performed by the IAB node, or a metric associated with a contention free RA (CFRA) procedure performed by the IAB node. However, Pantelidou discloses that it is known to include a RACH report as part of a RLF report (see 18:15-16, for example). Further, this RACH report includes metrics related to either a 4-step RACH procedure, or a CBRA procedure as indicated in 15:7-9 of Pantelidou. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wen to include at least RACH parameters such as that in a RACH report as part of the failure report in Wen. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide information regarding why the failure occurred, such as RACH information as suggested by Pantelidou.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (US 20220255689) in view of Khirallah et al (US 2023/0345532).
Regarding claim 10: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 10 that the report includes one or more of: a listen-before-talk (LBT) failure status report associated with an IAB mobile terminal (MT), or an LBT failure status report associated with a user equipment (UE). However, Khirallah discloses transmitting failures due to LBT procedures associated with UEs throughout. For example, consider [0070], which indicates that consistent LBT failures will be reported to other network nodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include LBT failures in the failure reports of Wen. The rationale for doing so would have been to identify and avoid those cells that are more likely to suffer from LBT failures than others as suggested by Khirallah in [0075].
Regarding claim 17: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 17 that the report indicates one or more of: a quantity of IAB mobile terminal (MT) nodes connected to the IAB node, or a quantity of user equipment (UEs) connected to the IAB node. However, Khirallah discloses transmitting failures due to LBT procedures associated with UEs throughout. For example, consider [0070], which indicates that consistent LBT failures will be reported to other network nodes. Further, Khirallah also discloses sending information on the number of active UEs (see the table 4 on page 10, which indicates this as an option for information to request to report in addition to LBT failures and thus discloses that this information is also reported). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include LBT failures as well as the number of active UEs in the failure reports of Wen. The rationale for doing so would have been to identify and avoid those cells that are more likely to suffer from LBT failures than others as suggested by Khirallah in [0075] as well as to determine the relative load on that network device in terms of active UEs.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (US 20220255689) in view of Kowalski et al (US 2023/0180147).
Regarding claim 19: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 19 that the report indicates one or more of a power headroom measure associated with the IAB node, a quantity of intra-control unit (CU)-control plane (CP) handover procedures performed by the IAB node, a quantity of inter-CU-CP handover procedures performed by the IAB node, a quantity of interruptions occurring during the intra-CU-CP handover procedures, a quantity of interruptions occurring during the inter-CU-CP handover procedures, or a quantity of interruptions occurring during topology adaptation procedures. However, Kowalski discloses at least an IAB including a power headroom measure in a report (see [0112] – “The report generated by IAB node transmission power report generator 120 may include transmission power utilization and/or transmission power headroom (PHR)”, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wen to include information relating to the power headroom of the IAB node as suggested by Kowalski. The rationale for doing so would have been to inform the parent node of the power headroom when determining how to modify the network configuration and thus enable a more informed re-configuration of the network resources.
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (US 20220255689) in view of Luo et al (US 2021/0315043).
Regarding claim 21: Wen discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 21 that the report indicates a parameter associated with a load experienced by the IAB node. However, Luo discloses including “a current load report” in a link failure report as indicated in [0053], for example. This load is associated with the IAB reporting the failure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a current load report in the link failure report as suggested by Luo. The rationale for doing so would have been to assist the network in identifying the source and/or cause of the failure by providing additional context information (such as the load) related to the failure.
Regarding claim 25: Wen, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 24 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 25 that the routing of data through the IAB network is modified further based at least in part on an additional metric indicated in the report, and wherein the additional metric includes one or more of: load information associated with the IAB node, a quantity of active user equipment (UEs) associated with the IAB node, a quantity of inactive UEs associated with the IAB node, or a quantity of IAB nodes attached to the IAB DU. However, Luo discloses including “a current load report” in a link failure report as indicated in [0053], for example. This load is associated with the IAB reporting the failure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a current load report in the link failure report as suggested by Luo and to further base the routing of the data in part on this load. The rationale for doing so would have been to assist the network in identifying the source and/or cause of the failure by providing additional context information (such as the load) related to the failure.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (US 20220255689) in view of Hwang et al (US 2022/0007212) in view of Luo et al (US 2021/0315043).
Regarding claim 23: Wen, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 22 as indicated above. Wen does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 23 that the IAB node is caused to transition from the active state to the inactive state or to transition from the inactive state to the active state further based at least in part on an additional metric indicated in the report, and wherein the additional metric includes one or more of: load information associated with the IAB node, a quantity of active user equipment (UEs) associated with the IAB node, a quantity of inactive UEs associated with the IAB node, or a quantity of IAB nodes attached to the IAB DU. However, Luo discloses including “a current load report” in a link failure report as indicated in [0053], for example. This load is associated with the IAB reporting the failure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a current load report in the link failure report as suggested by Luo and to further base the decision to transition from the active/inactive to inactive/active states in part on this load. The rationale for doing so would have been to assist the network in identifying the source and/or cause of the failure by providing additional context information (such as the load) related to the failure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6, 8, 11-15, and 20 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wei et al (US 2022/0201767) discloses a method for modifying a network topology in response to status information regarding the network.
Muhammad et al (US 2022/0182917) discloses a method for forwarding data in an IAB network, including modifying the topology.
Liu et al (US 2021/0377930) discloses a method for processing IAB status information by a network.
Park et al (US 20210195675) discloses a method for processing backhaul link connection information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 February 19, 2026