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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 and 10/04/2024 are considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A (claims 1-5 and 9-13) in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0388894; hereinafter Chen) in view of Fujishiro et al. (US 20230345346; hereinafter Fujishiro).
Regarding claim 1, Chen shows a method (Figure 3 shows the disclosed method of backhaul re-routing performed in part by one or the IAB nodes.) performed by an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving flow control feedback from a child node of the IAB node (Figure 3; Par. 0058; IAB node receives a flow control feedback from one of the child IAB nodes.);
based on the flow control feedback, identifying that a first link corresponding to a specific routing identifier (ID) (Figure 3; Par. 0058; The flow control feedback information may indicate the BAP routing ID (feedback BAP routing ID), BH RLC channel ID (feedback BH RLC channel ID) or available buffer size.);
selecting one entry among at least one entry in a backhaul (BH) routing configuration based on identification (Par. 0035, 0058; Upon receiving the flow control feedback info, the IAB node may determine that the packet either has a BAP routing ID that matches the feedback BAP routing ID or is from a channel corresponding to the feedback BH RLC channel ID, and responsively determine that the packet can be rerouted from the first transmission path to the second transmission path. In certain instances, an IAB node MT or DU detects egress link failure of an UL or DL packet, and the IAB node MT or DU may then find a backup routing path for the UL or DL packet. Suppose IAB node 1 (304) MT detects radio link failure (RLF) with its serving IAB node 2 (306), it may re-route the data packet to path ID 3. The data traffic originally associated with path ID 1 may be rerouted to IAB node 3 (308) via any BH RLC channels between IAB node 1 (304) and IAB node 3 (308). For DL packet, the BAP routing ID of backup routing paths should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but with different egress links.);
selecting an available second link corresponding to the selected entry (Par. 0035, 0058; the IAB node MT or DU detects egress link failure of an UL or DL packet, and the IAB node MT or DU may then find a backup routing path for the UL or DL packet. Suppose IAB node 1 (304) MT detects radio link failure (RLF) with its serving IAB node 2 (306), it may re-route the data packet to path ID 3. The data traffic originally associated with path ID 1 may be rerouted to IAB node 3 (308) via any BH RLC channels between IAB node 1 (304) and IAB node 3 (308). For DL packet, the BAP routing ID of backup routing paths should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but with different egress links.); and
performing routing based on the available second link (Par. 0035, 0058; the IAB node MT or DU detects egress link failure of an UL or DL packet, and the IAB node MT or DU may then find a backup routing path for the UL or DL packet. Suppose IAB node 1 (304) MT detects radio link failure (RLF) with its serving IAB node 2 (306), it may re-route the data packet to path ID 3. The data traffic originally associated with path ID 1 may be rerouted to IAB node 3 (308) via any BH RLC channels between IAB node 1 (304) and IAB node 3 (308). For DL packet, the BAP routing ID of backup routing paths should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but with different egress links.),
wherein the entry is selected based on whether a destination field of the second link corresponding to the entry is the same as a destination field of the first link (Par. 0035, 0058; the IAB node MT or DU detects egress link failure of an UL or DL packet, and the IAB node MT or DU may then find a backup routing path for the UL or DL packet. Suppose IAB node 1 (304) MT detects radio link failure (RLF) with its serving IAB node 2 (306), it may re-route the data packet to path ID 3. The data traffic originally associated with path ID 1 may be rerouted to IAB node 3 (308) via any BH RLC channels between IAB node 1 (304) and IAB node 3 (308). For DL packet, the BAP routing ID of backup routing paths should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but with different egress links.).
Chen shows all of the elements as discussed above. Chen does not specifically show based on the flow control feedback, identifying that a first link is unavailable.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Fujishiro. Specifically, Fujishiro shows based on the flow control feedback, identifying that a first link is unavailable (Par. 0134; an example of “when failing to transfer the data packet for a certain period” is that the radio state between the IAB node 300-T and the child node 300-C1 is below a certain value. The radio state in this case is notified to the IAB node 300-T by a measurement report from the child node 300-C1.).
In view of the above, having the system of Chen, then given the well-established teaching of Fujishiro, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen as taught by Fujishiro, in order to provide motivation to guarantee lossless delivery under a condition that the topology change possibly frequently occur (Par. 0378 of Fujishiro).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen shows wherein whether the first link is unavailable is determined based on whether the first link is congested based on the flow control feedback (Fujishiro: Par. 0135, 0140; an example of “when failing to transfer the data packet for a certain period” is that the radio state between the IAB node 300-T and the child node 300-C1 is below a certain value. The radio state in this case is notified to the IAB node 300-T by a measurement report from the child node 300-C1. The radio state implies congestion as flow control feedback messages are used to denote whether the network is in congested state or normal state.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chen shows wherein the routing is performed for next hop of the second link (Chen: Figure 3; Par. 0047; If the IAB node triggers packet rerouting for DL/UL traffic, the IAB node should find a backup routing path for the packet that is to be rerouted. For a DL packet, the BAP routing ID of the backup routing path should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but may have a different egress link. When such a backup routing path is selected from the routing selection table, the IAB node may deliver the data packet to the next hop based on the new BAP routing ID of the backup path.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Chen shows wherein the second link is selected without considering whether a path field of the second link of the selected entry is the same as the path field of the first link (Chen: Par. 0048; If multiple BAP routing IDs with different backup routing paths can be determined, the IAB node may randomly select one BAP routing ID for the packet rerouting. Alternatively, the IAB node may select the BAP routing ID from the candidate backup paths that has the highest priority, lowest hop count, lowest cost, and/or lowest latency.).
Regarding claim 9, Chen shows an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (Figure 9; Par. 0076-0077 shows a wireless IAB node.) comprising:
at least one transceiver (Par. 0076-0077; IAB node includes a transceiver.);
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver (Par. 0076-0077; IAB node includes a processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver; and
at least one memory, communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the IAB node (Par. 0076-0077; instructions stored in memory and executed by the processor to perform the disclosed method.) to:
receive flow control feedback from a child node of the IAB node (Figure 3; Par. 0058; IAB node receives a flow control feedback from one of the child IAB nodes.);
based on the flow control feedback, identify that a first link corresponding to a specific routing identifier (ID) (Figure 3; Par. 0058; The flow control feedback information may indicate the BAP routing ID (feedback BAP routing ID), BH RLC channel ID (feedback BH RLC channel ID) or available buffer size.);
select one entry among at least one entry in a backhaul (BH) routing configuration based on identification (Par. 0035, 0058; Upon receiving the flow control feedback info, the IAB node may determine that the packet either has a BAP routing ID that matches the feedback BAP routing ID or is from a channel corresponding to the feedback BH RLC channel ID, and responsively determine that the packet can be rerouted from the first transmission path to the second transmission path. In certain instances, an IAB node MT or DU detects egress link failure of an UL or DL packet, and the IAB node MT or DU may then find a backup routing path for the UL or DL packet. Suppose IAB node 1 (304) MT detects radio link failure (RLF) with its serving IAB node 2 (306), it may re-route the data packet to path ID 3. The data traffic originally associated with path ID 1 may be rerouted to IAB node 3 (308) via any BH RLC channels between IAB node 1 (304) and IAB node 3 (308). For DL packet, the BAP routing ID of backup routing paths should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but with different egress links.);
select an available second link corresponding to the selected entry (Par. 0035, 0058; the IAB node MT or DU detects egress link failure of an UL or DL packet, and the IAB node MT or DU may then find a backup routing path for the UL or DL packet. Suppose IAB node 1 (304) MT detects radio link failure (RLF) with its serving IAB node 2 (306), it may re-route the data packet to path ID 3. The data traffic originally associated with path ID 1 may be rerouted to IAB node 3 (308) via any BH RLC channels between IAB node 1 (304) and IAB node 3 (308). For DL packet, the BAP routing ID of backup routing paths should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but with different egress links.); and
perform routing based on the available second link (Par. 0035, 0058; the IAB node MT or DU detects egress link failure of an UL or DL packet, and the IAB node MT or DU may then find a backup routing path for the UL or DL packet. Suppose IAB node 1 (304) MT detects radio link failure (RLF) with its serving IAB node 2 (306), it may re-route the data packet to path ID 3. The data traffic originally associated with path ID 1 may be rerouted to IAB node 3 (308) via any BH RLC channels between IAB node 1 (304) and IAB node 3 (308). For DL packet, the BAP routing ID of backup routing paths should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but with different egress links.),
wherein the entry is selected based on whether a destination field of the second link corresponding to the entry is the same as a destination field of the first link (Par. 0035, 0058; the IAB node MT or DU detects egress link failure of an UL or DL packet, and the IAB node MT or DU may then find a backup routing path for the UL or DL packet. Suppose IAB node 1 (304) MT detects radio link failure (RLF) with its serving IAB node 2 (306), it may re-route the data packet to path ID 3. The data traffic originally associated with path ID 1 may be rerouted to IAB node 3 (308) via any BH RLC channels between IAB node 1 (304) and IAB node 3 (308). For DL packet, the BAP routing ID of backup routing paths should have the same destination BAP address as the original routing path, but with different egress links.).
Chen shows all of the elements as discussed above. Chen does not specifically show based on the flow control feedback, identify that a first link is unavailable.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Fujishiro. Specifically, Fujishiro shows based on the flow control feedback, identifying that a first link is unavailable (Par. 0134; an example of “when failing to transfer the data packet for a certain period” is that the radio state between the IAB node 300-T and the child node 300-C1 is below a certain value. The radio state in this case is notified to the IAB node 300-T by a measurement report from the child node 300-C1.).
In view of the above, having the system of Chen, then given the well-established teaching of Fujishiro, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen as taught by Fujishiro, in order to provide motivation to guarantee lossless delivery under a condition that the topology change possibly frequently occur (Par. 0378 of Fujishiro).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 13, these claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250081084 A1 - METHODS, WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT
US 20240114387 A1 - METHODS, WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT
US 20240015098 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING SIGNAL AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
US 20230239954 A1 - COMMUNICATION METHOD AND RELATED DEVICE
US 20230016871 A1 - METHOD AND RELAY NODE
US 20220132390 A1 - BAP CONFIGURATIONS FOR BACKHAUL ROUTING PATHS IN IAB
US 20220132393 A1 - REWRITING BAP HEADERS IN IAB
US 20210168646 A1 - METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS FOR INTEGRATED ACCESS AND BACKHAUL BEARER MANAGEMENT
US 20200045610 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS OF UPDATING ROUTING TABLE OF AN IAB (INTEGRATED ACCESS BACKHAUL) NODE IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDENTOR M PASIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9745. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays - 5am-245pm and Fridays 5am-330pm.
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, Un Cho can be reached at (571)272-7919. 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.
/REDENTOR PASIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights