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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 submitted 04/17/2024, 11/14/2024, 03/14/2025, 04/16/2025 is attached to the instant office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1: claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0082294 A1 (foreign priority date of Jul. 29, 2021 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of US 2024/0396832 A1 (foreign priority date of Oct. 8, 2021) to Visa et al. (hereinafter “Visa”)
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a routing apparatus configured in an IAB node, the apparatus comprising: (Figures 13 and 15 and [0220] and [0255], illustrates IAB node 5 (i.e. routing apparatus configured in an IAB node) involved in two topologies of the NR system)
a receiver (Figure 2 and [0090]-[0092], discloses wireless devices such as UE or BS comprising transceiver) configured to receive downlink data from an ingress link to which a second donor CU corresponds, (Figure 13 and [0220]-[0221], an IAB node involved in two topologies of the NR system. Referring to FIG. 13, if the IAB node is involved in two topologies where each topology is controlled by different IAB-donor CU (e.g., a first topology is under IAB-donor CU 1 and a second topology is under IAB-donor CU 2 (i.e. second donor CU)). Figure 15 and [0259], discloses When the node 5 receives the packet 2, the node 5 recognizes that the link for reception of packet 2 is the link used to connect the second topology (i.e. receive downlink data from an ingress link to which a second donor CU corresponds))
the second donor-CU being a donor-CU with which the IAB node does not establish F1 association; (Figure 13 and [0220], discloses the second topology represents a non-F1-terminating donor's topology (i.e. IAB node does not establish F1 association))
a processor (Figure 2 and [0090]-[0092], discloses wireless devices such as UE or BS comprising processor) configured to select an egress link for the downlink data ([0235], discloses The node 5 checks the remapping table and find the entry to rewrite the routing information of the packet 3 with (dst:6, pid:1) (i.e. select an egress link for the downlink data) and transmit the packet 3 to the node 6 in the first topology after routing operation based on the rewritten routing information in the packet 3)
Lee does not explicitly teach select an egress link for the downlink data if the egress link is available.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Visa discloses in Figure 18 and [0375], the IAB-node checks, based on the routing identifier of the data packet, routing configuration information, such as the routing configuration table or Backhaul routing configuration table 500 (or 700 alternately), associated to the IAB topology identified at step 1802, looking for a routing option for the BAP packet to be routed. [0377], discloses A routing option may consist in finding an entry in the Backhaul routing configuration table 500. [0378], discloses If a routing option is found at step 1812, the IAB-node identifies at step 1813 the egress backhaul (BH) link where the BAP PDU is to be routed, for example, by checking the Next Hop BAP Address field 502 associated to the entry of Backhaul routing configuration table identified at steps 1811 and 1812. [0379], further discloses Then the IAB-node determines at step 1814 if the egress BH link identified at step 1813 is available. [0380], discloses If it is determined that the egress BH link is available, the IAB-node determines at step 1815 the BH RLC channel over which the BAP PDU is to be routed based on the information from the BH RLC Channel Mapping Configuration table, as discussed with reference to FIG. 5b, FIG. 5c, FIG. 9b and FIG. 9c, and eventually routes the BAP PDU over the determined BH RLC channel (i.e. select an egress link for the downlink data if the egress link is available).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lee to include the above limitations as suggested by Visa, to optimise the routing of data packets based on current condition as indicated in [0030] of Visa.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee/Visa teaches The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Lee further teaches replace, if it is determined that the IAB node is configured with an inter-donor-CU header rewriting configuration and the downlink data are from an ingress link to which the second donor- CU corresponds, ([0255], discloses node 5 has one remapping table (i.e. configured with an inter-donor-CU header rewriting configuration). [0259], further discloses When the node 5 receives the packet 2, the node 5 recognizes that the link for reception of packet 2 is the link used to connect the second topology (i.e. downlink data are from an ingress link to which the second donor-CU corresponds) a first routing identifier in a BAP header of the downlink data with a corresponding second routing identifier according to the inter-donor-CU header rewriting configuration, (Figure 15 and [0259], discloses When the node 5 receives the packet 2, the node 5 recognizes that the link for reception of packet 2 (with header indicating dst: node 6, pid:2 (i.e. first routing identifier in BAP header of the downlink data)) is the link used to connect the second topology and the routing information of the packet 2 does not match the identifier of the node 5 for the second topology. The node 5 checks the remapping table (i.e. according to the inter-donor-CU header rewriting configuration) and find the entry to rewrite the routing information of the packet 3 with (dst:6, pid:1) (i.e. corresponding second routing identifier) and transmit the packet 3 to the node 6 in the first topology after routing operation based on the rewritten routing information in the packet 3. Figure 15 illustrates remapping table with entry {(dst:6, pid:2)->(dst 6, pid:1)})
wherein, the first routing identifier belongs to a second donor-CU topology domain, and (Figure 15 and [0259], discloses When the node 5 receives the packet 2, the node 5 recognizes that the link for reception of packet 2 (with header indicating dst: node 6, pid:2) is the link used to connect the second topology2 (i.e. first routing identifier belongs to a second donor-CU topology domain))
the second routing identifier belongs to a first donor-CU topology domain, ([0259], discloses The node 5 checks the remapping table and find the entry to rewrite the routing information of the packet 3 with (dst:6, pid:1) and transmit the packet 3 to the node 6 in the first topology (i.e. second routing identifier belongs to a first donor-CU topology domain) after routing operation based on the rewritten routing information in the packet 3. Examiner notes that the recitation of “packet 3” in [0259] should be “packet 2”, as the disclosure for [0259] is directed to “packet 2”, while [0260], is directed to “packet 3”)
the first donor-CU being a donor-CU with which the IAB node establishes F 1 association, and (Figure 13 and [0220], discloses the first topology represents a F1-terminating donor's topology (i.e. IAB node establishes F1 association))
select, if there is a routing entry satisfying a second condition in a first routing table of the IAB node, an egress link to which a next hop address in the routing entry corresponds as a first egress link of the downlink data, ([0259], discloses The node 5 checks the remapping table (i.e. first routing table) and find the entry (i.e. select an egress link) to rewrite the routing information of the packet 3 with (dst:6, pid:1) and transmit the packet 3 to the node 6 in the first topology (i.e. second routing identifier belongs to a first donor-CU topology domain) [0232], discloses Each node in a topology may have one or more routing table which includes one or more entries comprising with at least a routing information and a next hop node.)
wherein the first routing table is for the first donor-CU topology domain, ( ([0259], discloses The node 5 checks the remapping table (i.e. first routing table) and find the entry to rewrite the routing information of the packet 3 with (dst:6, pid:1) and transmit the packet 3 to the node 6 in the first topology (i.e. first donor CU topology domain))
the second condition refers to that a routing identifier in the routing entry matches the second routing identifier, and ([0259], discloses The node 5 checks the remapping table and find the entry to rewrite the routing information of the packet 3 with (dst:6, pid:1) (i.e. routing identifier in the routing entry matches the second routing identifier))
Visa further teaches the egress link to which the next hop address in the routing entry corresponds is available. (Figure 18 and [0375]-[0380], discloses If it is determined that the egress BH link is available, the IAB-node determines at step 1815 the BH RLC channel over which the BAP PDU is to be routed based on the information from the BH RLC Channel Mapping Configuration table, as discussed with reference to FIG. 5b, FIG. 5c, FIG. 9b and FIG. 9c, and eventually routes the BAP PDU over the determined BH RLC channel (i.e. select an egress link for the downlink data if the egress link is available))
Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee/Visa teaches The apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein, if a destination BAP address of the first routing identifier in the BAP header of the downlink data is a BAP address configured by the second donor-CU for the IAB node, the IAB node delivers the downlink data to a higher layer of the IAB node. ([0257], discloses When the node 6 in the second topology receives the packet 1, the node 6 in the second topology recognizes that the routing information of the packet 1 (i.e. destination BAP address of the first routing identifier) matches the identifier of the node 6 in the second topology (i.e. is a BAP address configured by the second donor-CU for the IAB node) and then delivers the packet 1 to an upper layer (i.e. IAB node delivers the downlink data to a higher layer))
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Visa in view of US 2024/0236003 A1 (foreign priority date of May 27, 2021) to Lagrange et al. (hereinafter “Lagrange”)
Regarding Claim 4, Lee/Visa teaches The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
Lee teaches a transmitter (Figure 2 and [0090]-[0092], discloses wireless devices such as UE or BS comprising transceiver). Lee/Visa does not explicitly teach the transmitter configured to forward flow control indication information to a parent node of the IAB node.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lagrange discloses in [0167], IAB-node 607 (e.g. the IAB-MT of IAB-node 607) may send a flow control feedback to its parent IAB-node(s) (i.e. to IAB node 606 in this example), with one of the message formats described in the FIGS. 7a, 7b, 8a and 8b. The flow control feedback contains status information relative to buffer load (e.g. available buffer size) in IAB-node 607, either per BH RLC Channel ID or per BAP routing ID.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lee/Visa to include the above limitations as suggested by Lagrange, to provide an improved mechanism for mitigating congestion in an IAB network as indicated in [0024] of Lagrange.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Visa/Lagrange in view of US 2024/187929 A1 (provisional application no. 63/176,937, field on Apr. 20, 2021) to Barac et al. (hereinafter “Barac”)
Regarding Claim 5, Lee/Visa/Lagrange teaches The apparatus according to claim 4,
Visa further teaches transmit the flow control indication information to an egress link ([0167], discloses The flow control feedback is sent on the egress link 667 over a BH RLC channel configured in advance by the IAB-donor-CU 601 )
Visa teaches redundant downstream paths from an IAB-donor-DU to IAB node, but does not teach wherein, the transmitter is further configured to modify, if it is determined that the IAB node is configured with an inter-donor-CU header rewriting configuration and a third routing identifier contained in the flow control indication information belongs to an replacement routing identifier in the inter-donor-CU header rewriting configuration, the third routing identifier in the flow control indication information into a corresponding fourth routing identifier according to the inter-donor-CU header rewriting configuration and
transmit the flow control indication information to an egress link to which the second donor- CU corresponds,
wherein the third routing identifier belongs to a first donor-CU topology domain, and the fourth routing identifier belongs to a second donor-CU topology domain.
However, the concept of redundancy across multiple donor CUs in an inter-donor topological redundancy is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Barac discloses in [0022], discloses the BAP layer has an important role in the hop-by-hop flow control. In particular a child node can inform the parent node about possible congestions experienced locally at the child node, so that the parent node can throttle the traffic towards the child node. The parent node can also use the BAP layer to inform the child a node in case of Radio Link Failure (RLF) issues experienced by the parent, so that the child can possibly reestablish its connection to another parent node. [0105], When the CU determines that load balancing is needed, the CU starts the procedure requesting to a second CU resources to offload part of the traffic of a certain (i.e. top-level) IAB node. The CUs will negotiate the configuration (i.e. configured with inter-donor CU header rewriting configuration) and the second CU will prepare the configuration to apply in the second protocol stack of the IAB-MT, the RLC backhaul channel(s), BAP address(es), etc (i.e. replacement routing identifier). The top-level IAB-MT will use routing rules provided by the CU to route certain traffic to the first or the second CU. In the DL, the IAB-MT will translate the BAP addresses from the second CU to the BAP addresses from the first CU to reach the nodes under the control of the first CU (i.e. modify a third routing identifier to a corresponding fourth routing identifier). Figure 11 and [0109]-[0113], further discloses inter-donor topological redundancy including a boundary IAB node that accesses two different parent nodes connected to two different donor CUs, including F1-termination node (i.e. first donor -CU topology) and non-F1-termination node (i.e. second donor-CU topology). [0118], further discloses F1 connections of IAB3-DU and IAB4-DU remain anchored at CU_1.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lee/Visa/Lagrange to include the above limitations as suggested by Barac, in order to enable temporary offloading and help avoid failures and packet losses as indicated in [0130]-[0131] of Barac.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights