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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-13 and 20-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/24/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEYEB et al. (US 20220201777 A1, hereinafter, "TEYEB") in view of BARAC et al. (US 20230239755 A1, hereinafter, "BARAC").
Regarding claim 1, TEYEB teaches an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node for wireless communication, comprising:
TEYEB writes, “Each of the IAB nodes 311-315 connects to the IAB-donor via one or more wireless backhaul links (also referred to herein as “hops”)” (paragraph 0028; figure 3). TEYEB adds, “Some examples of a radio access node include, but are not limited to, a base station (e.g., a New Radio (NR) base station (gNB) in a 3GPP Fifth Generation (5G) NR network or an enhanced or evolved Node B (eNB) in a 3GPP LTE network), a high-power or macro base station, a low-power base station (e.g., a micro base station, a pico base station, a home eNB, or the like), an integrated access backhaul (IAB) node, and a relay node” (paragraph 0072).
at least one memory (paragraph 0257; figure 24, device readable medium: 2480);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (paragraph 0257; figure 24, processing circuitry: 2470) and operable to cause the IAB node to:
and perform bearer remapping based at least in part on the flow control feedback.
TEYEB writes, “Exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure address these and other problems, challenges, and/or issues by providing methods and/or procedures for relocating and/or remapping the F1-C TNL association between the donor CU and the IAB node, when the IAB node hands over from one serving IAB node to another” (paragraph 0199).
TEYEB fails to explicitly disclose information regarding, “receive flow control feedback;”
However, in analogous art, BARAC teaches receive flow control feedback;
BARAC writes, “The BAP sublayer supports the following functions: data transfer; determination of BAP destination and path for packets from upper layers; determination of egress backhaul RLC channels for packets routed to next hop; routing of packets to next hop; differentiating traffic to be delivered to upper layers from traffic to be delivered to egress link; and flow control feedback and polling signaling” (paragraph 0014). BARAC indicates receiving flow control feedback.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of TEYEB to include aspects described by BARAC that “are directed to wireless communications and, more particularly, to improved F1 setup for handover in integrated access and backhaul (IAB) networks.” BARAC provides the motivation for modification stating, “Certain embodiments may provide one or more of the following technical advantages. For example, particular embodiments facilitate a faster F1 connection setup during IAB handover, thereby reducing the overall handover time and improving the performance of all the UEs that are directly or indirectly being served by the migrating IAB node (e.g., UEs directly connected to the IAB node, UEs connected to the children of the IAB node, etc.)” (paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 2, TEYEB and BARAC teach the IAB node of claim 1, wherein to perform the bearer remapping, the at least one processor is operable to cause the IAB node to
Additionally, BARAC teaches select an available egress backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) channel (CH) based at least in part on the flow control feedback.
BARAC writes, “The BAP sublayer supports the following functions: data transfer; determination of BAP destination and path for packets from upper layers; determination of egress backhaul RLC channels for packets routed to next hop; routing of packets to next hop; differentiating traffic to be delivered to upper layers from traffic to be delivered to egress link; and flow control feedback and polling signaling” (paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 4, TEYEB and BARAC teach the IAB node of claim 1, wherein to perform the bearer remapping, the at least one processor is operable to cause the IAB node to:
Additionally, TEYEB teaches select an available egress backhaul (BH) radio link control (RLC) channel (CH) based at least in part on the flow control feedback and a threshold for an available buffer size.
TEYEB writes, “The F1-U protocol uses the services of the TNL in order to allow flow control of user data packets…” (paragraph 0088). TEYEB adds, “Information of the currently minimum desired buffer size at the corresponding node for transmitting to the UE user data associated with all data radio bearers configured for the UE at the corresponding node” (paragraph 0095). TEYEB continues, “The UE establishes RLC channels to the DU on the UE's access IAB node in compliance with 3GPP TS 38.300 (version 15.2.0). Each of these RLC channels is extended via a potentially modified form of F1-U, referred to as F1*-U, between the UE's access DU and the IAB donor. The information embedded in F1*-U is carried over RLC channels across the backhaul links” (paragraph 0099).
Claims 16-17 and 19 are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1-2 and 4 that have already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1-2 and 4. Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected under the same rational as claim 1-2 and 4.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 18, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEYEB and BARAC as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 16-17, and 19 above, and further in view of AKL et al. (US 20220386233 A1, hereinafter, "AKL").
Regarding claim 3, TEYEB and BARAC teach the IAB node of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the IAB node to
TEYEB and BARAC fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “determine an egress BH RLC CH as unavailable in response to the egress BH RLC CH being indicated in the flow control feedback.”
However, in analogous art, AKL teaches determine an egress BH RLC CH as unavailable in response to the egress BH RLC CH being indicated in the flow control feedback.
AKL writes, “The wireless node may deactivate routing of traffic or a traffic flow thereof along a route or path. In this way, the wireless node and/or other entities within the IAB network architecture reduce an amount of traffic handled by wireless nodes on the route or path, improve network performance, or reduce energy usage, among other examples” (paragraph 0082). AKL adds, “...wireless node 720 may receive an indicator of a backhaul RLC channel (e.g., an ingress or egress backhaul RLC channel) or a physical route that is available or not available for local re-routing” (paragraph 0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of TEYEB and BARAC to include aspects described by AKL that “generally relate to wireless communication and to techniques and apparatuses for local re-routing in integrated access and backhaul deployments.” AKL provides the motivation for modification stating, “Some aspects described herein enable local re-routing in IAB deployments. For example, a wireless node may enable local re-routing to achieve energy savings or load balancing, among other examples. The wireless node may deactivate routing of traffic or a traffic flow thereof along a route or path. In this way, the wireless node and/or other entities within the IAB network architecture reduce an amount of traffic handled by wireless nodes on the route or path, improve network performance, or reduce energy usage, among other examples” (paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 5, TEYEB and BARAC teach the IAB node of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the IAB node to at least one of:
TEYEB and BARAC fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “determine an egress BH RLC CH as unavailable in response to the egress BH RLC CH being indicated in the flow control feedback and an available buffer size of the egress BH RLC CH being less than or equal to the threshold for the available buffer size; or determine the egress BH RLC CH as available in response to the egress BH RLC CH being indicated in the flow control feedback and the available buffer size of the egress BH RLC CH being greater than the threshold for the available buffer size.”
However, in analogous art, AKL teaches determine an egress BH RLC CH as unavailable in response to the egress BH RLC CH being indicated in the flow control feedback and an available buffer size of the egress BH RLC CH being less than or equal to the threshold for the available buffer size; or determine the egress BH RLC CH as available in response to the egress BH RLC CH being indicated in the flow control feedback and the available buffer size of the egress BH RLC CH being greater than the threshold for the available buffer size.
AKL writes, “The wireless node may deactivate routing of traffic or a traffic flow thereof along a route or path. In this way, the wireless node and/or other entities within the IAB network architecture reduce an amount of traffic handled by wireless nodes on the route or path, improve network performance, or reduce energy usage, among other examples” (paragraph 0082). AKL adds, “For example, donor unit 705 may configure a set of thresholds or conditions for triggering local re-routing and may provide an indicator of the set of thresholds or conditions to enable downstream wireless nodes to trigger local re-routing for energy saving without further signaling from donor unit 705” (paragraph 0087). AKL continues, “...wireless node 720 may receive an indicator of a backhaul RLC channel (e.g., an ingress or egress backhaul RLC channel) or a physical route that is available or not available for local re-routing” (paragraph 0088). AKL explains, “As used herein, satisfying a threshold may, depending on the context, refer to a value being greater than the threshold, greater than or equal to the threshold, less than the threshold, less than or equal to the threshold, equal to the threshold, not equal to the threshold, or the like” (paragraph 0213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of TEYEB and BARAC to include aspects described by AKL that “generally relate to wireless communication and to techniques and apparatuses for local re-routing in integrated access and backhaul deployments.” AKL provides the motivation for modification stating, “Some aspects described herein enable local re-routing in IAB deployments. For example, a wireless node may enable local re-routing to achieve energy savings or load balancing, among other examples. The wireless node may deactivate routing of traffic or a traffic flow thereof along a route or path. In this way, the wireless node and/or other entities within the IAB network architecture reduce an amount of traffic handled by wireless nodes on the route or path, improve network performance, or reduce energy usage, among other examples” (paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 6, TEYEB and BARAC teach the IAB node of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the IAB node to
TEYEB and BARAC fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “receive an indication, from an IAB donor connected to the IAB node or a parent IAB node of the IAB node, indicating whether the bearer remapping is allowed at the IAB node.”
However, in analogous art, AKL teaches receive an indication, from an IAB donor connected to the IAB node or a parent IAB node of the IAB node, indicating whether the bearer remapping is allowed at the IAB node.
AKL writes, “As shown in FIG. 7A, and by reference number 750, wireless node 720 may receive an energy saving indication. For example, wireless node 720 may receive the energy saving indication from wireless node 710. Additionally, or alternatively, wireless node 720 may receive another type of indication, such as a load balancing indication. In some aspects, the energy saving indication may be one of a plurality of indications or may include a plurality of indications. For example, wireless node 710 may communicate a first indication to donor unit 705 and may, based at least in part on an instruction from donor unit 705, propagate a second indication to wireless node 720” (paragraph 0084). AKL continues, “…wireless node 720 may receive a multi-hop indication, from donor unit 705, indicating an unavailability of a particular BAP routing identifier to cause wireless node 720 to switch routes for uplink traffic toward donor unit 705. The multi-hop indication may trigger traffic re-routing at wireless node 720” (paragraph 0085). AKL adds, “In some aspects, wireless node 720 may receive an energy saving indication associated with an energy saving schedule. For example, wireless node 720 may receive information identifying a schedule for a path availability associated with a path. In this case, the energy saving indication may include the energy saving schedule or may activate a previously configured energy saving schedule. For example, wireless node 720 may receive an indication of the energy saving schedule and may periodically re-route traffic associated with a path at times indicated by the energy saving schedule. In this case, wireless node 720 may activate or deactivate a configuration to re-route traffic associated with the path based at least in part on an availability of the path as indicated by the energy saving schedule. In some aspects, the energy saving schedule may include information identifying when a path is available, when a path is not available, a periodicity of a path availability, or a duration of a path availability (e.g., an amount of time that elapses or an absolute time of path availability), among other examples” (paragraph 0089). AKL mentions, “In some aspects, the configuration to re-route traffic may include a BAP configuration. Additionally, or alternatively, the configuration may include an uplink mapping configuration that enables wireless node 720 or another node (e.g., the D-DU of donor unit 705) to map a traffic type to an outgoing routing identifier, an egress link, or an egress RLC channel, among other examples” (paragraph 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of TEYEB and BARAC to include aspects described by AKL that “generally relate to wireless communication and to techniques and apparatuses for local re-routing in integrated access and backhaul deployments.” AKL provides the motivation for modification stating, “Some aspects described herein enable local re-routing in IAB deployments. For example, a wireless node may enable local re-routing to achieve energy savings or load balancing, among other examples. The wireless node may deactivate routing of traffic or a traffic flow thereof along a route or path. In this way, the wireless node and/or other entities within the IAB network architecture reduce an amount of traffic handled by wireless nodes on the route or path, improve network performance, or reduce energy usage, among other examples” (paragraph 0082).
Claims 18 and 23-25 are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 3 and 5-6 that have already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 3 and 5-6. Claims 18 and 23-25 are rejected under the same rational as claim 3 and 5-6.
Claim(s) 7 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEYEB and BARAC as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of HU et al. (WO 2021005456 A1, hereinafter, "HU").
Regarding claim 7, TEYEB and BARAC teach the IAB node of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the IAB node to
TEYEB and BARAC fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “transmit, to an IAB donor connected to the IAB node or a parent IAB node of the IAB node, a capability of whether the bearer remapping is supported at the IAB node.”
However, in analogous art, HU teaches transmit, to an IAB donor connected to the IAB node or a parent IAB node of the IAB node, a capability of whether the bearer remapping is supported at the IAB node.
HU writes, “Embodiment 20. The method of Embodiment 17 wherein determining whether to remap the ingress BH RLC channel having the associated first LCID comprises determining whether a capability of an IAB node needed for a link used for the egress BH RLC channel having the associated first LCID is not supported by the IAB node” (paragraph 0087). HU adds, “...the processing circuitry 1106 may add remapping information in a header to indicate that a packet being sent has been remapped responsive to the remapping. The remapping information may be an original BH RLC channel LCID indication. The indication may be in the form of a flag in some embodiments” (paragraph 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of TEYEB and BARAC to include aspects described by HU that “is related to communication systems and more particularly to how bearers are remapped in integrated access and wireless access backhaul networks.” HU provides the motivation for modification stating, “Advantages of the inventive concepts described may include the enabling of the possibility to perform bearer remapping at intermediate hops, which may be required due to several reasons such as re-routing due to radio link failure or mismatch of LCID spaces between different hops (e.g. due to IAB nodes implementing different NR releases)” (paragraph 0019).
Claims 8-15 and 20-22 have been canceled by the applicant, respectfully.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A REYES whose telephone number is (703)756-4558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EDT.
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, KHALED KASSIM can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/Christopher A. Reyes/Examiner, Art Unit 2475 8/3/2026
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights