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 .
Examiner has considered Amendment after Non-Final mailed 6/29/2026.
Claims 1-17, 20-21, 27 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10, 13, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makki et al. US 20190253136.
Regarding claim 1, A method performed by an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) node (nodes in adaptive IAB network, Figure 5, para. 0011), the method comprising: obtaining channel quality or received signal power for each of two or more transmitting nodes at the IAB node, selecting, based on the channel qualities or received signal powers for the two or more transmitting nodes, a combination of scheduling configurations for the two or more transmitting nodes (one or more of AP1 and UEs may send their data rate requirements to AP2, para. 0045, based on obtained gains of the AP-AP and AP-UE links and the one or more data rate requirements, AP2 determines the appropriate multiple access scheme, with the minimum number of paired nodes, para. 0047), the combination of scheduling configurations comprising a multiple access scheme for the two or more transmitting nodes selected from a set of multiple access schemes comprising one or more multiple access schemes that enable simultaneous reception of signals transmitted from the two or more transmitting nodes at the IAB node and one or more multiple access schemes that enable non- simultaneous reception of signals transmitted from the two or more transmitting nodes at the IAB node (OMA techniques such as TDMA, FDMA, and/or CDMA support low data rates with low implementation complexity, while NOMA supports higher achievable data rates at the cost of higher implementation complexity, an adaptive IAB network, based on the selected multiple access scheme, determines as appropriate the power levels, the beamforming, and the transmit/receive timing for the links, and, depending on a requested data rate, the adaptive IAB network may switch between optimized configurations, para. 0011, pairing of one or more UEs with an AP means that the one or more UEs and the AP utilize NOMA-based schemes, sharing a resource such as time or frequency for transmitting or receiving, para. 0047, 0058); transmitting one or more messages to the two or more transmitting nodes that provide information for configuration of or request the two or more transmitting nodes to transmit signals to the IAB node in accordance with the selected multiple access scheme (AP2 informs the paired nodes about the selected multiple access scheme such as NOMA), as well as their beamforming/power levels, para. 0049); and receiving signals from the two or more transmitting nodes in accordance with the selected multiple access scheme (the NOMA scheme is used for one or more of data uplink and/or data downlink, the first AP is scheduled to transmit data to the second AP during a first time slot and using a first set of one or more frequencies, and pairing a first UE with the first AP comprises the second AP scheduling the first UE to transmit data to the second AP during the first time slot and using the first set of frequencies, para. 0059).
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more multiple access schemes that enable simultaneous reception of transmissions from the two or more nodes at the IAB node comprise one or more non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) schemes (the adaptive IAB network may switch between optimized configurations, para. 0011, pairing of one or more UEs with an AP means that the one or more UEs and the AP utilize NOMA-based schemes, sharing a resource such as time or frequency for transmitting or receiving, para. 0047, 0058).
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 2, to wherein the one or
more multiple access schemes that enable simultaneous reception of transmissions from the two or more nodes at the IAB node further comprise one or more Orthogonal Multiple Access (OMA) schemes (an OMA scheme, each AP and UE has its own, orthogonal resource block, Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more OMA schemes comprise: a Spatial Division Multiple Access (SDMA) scheme, a
Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) scheme, or both the
SDMA scheme and the FDMA scheme (OMA techniques such as TDMA, FDMA, and/or CDMA support low data rates with low implementation complexity, para. 0011).
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1, wherein the one or
more multiple access schemes that enable non-simultaneous reception of transmissions
from the two or more nodes at the IAB node comprise one or more orthogonal
multiple access, (OMA) schemes that enable non-simultaneous reception (an OMA scheme, each AP and UE has its own, orthogonal resource block, Figure 2A, OMA techniques such as TDMA, FDMA, and/or CDMA support low data rates with low implementation complexity, para. 0011).
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more OMA schemes that enable non-simultaneous reception comprise a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) scheme (an OMA scheme, each AP and UE has its own, orthogonal resource block, Figure 2A, OMA techniques such as TDMA, FDMA, and/or CDMA support low data rates with low implementation complexity, para. 0011).
Regarding claim 10, The method of claim any of claims-1, to 8 wherein the two or
more transmitting nodes consist of two or more wireless communications devices served by the IAB node (a network having five APs, Figure 1B, elements 105d-h, each serving two UEs, elements UE 101d-h and UE 102d-h).
Regarding claim 13, The method of claim 1 wherein: selecting the combination of scheduling configurations for the two or more transmitting nodes comprises selecting the multiple access scheme for the two or more transmitting nodes from the set of multiple access schemes based on the channel qualities or received signal powers for the two or more transmitting nodes at the IAB node (one or more of AP1 and UEs may send their data rate requirements to AP2, para. 0045, based on obtained gains of the AP-AP and AP-UE links and the one or more data rate requirements, AP2 determines the appropriate multiple access scheme, with the minimum number of paired nodes, para. 0047).
Claim 27 is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makki in view of Suh et al. US 20220400475.
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 2, Makki does not disclose wherein the one or more NOMA schemes comprise one or more power-domain NOMA schemes. Suh discloses NOMA schemes may be classified into NOMA schemes applied to code domain and NOMA schemes applied to power domain, para. 0117, the code-domain NOMA series may be based on the existing code division multiple access (CDMA) technology, the code-domain NOMA series may consider at least one of an interleave-division multiple access (IDMA) scheme, a low density spreading aided CDMA (LDSCDMA) scheme, a multi user shared access (MUSA) scheme, a resource spread multiple access (RSMA) scheme, and a sparse code multiple access (SCMA) scheme, para. 0118. Suh discloses the power-domain NOMA may be a technology of multiplexing users through powers with different sizes based on power domain multiple access (PDMA), as the power-domain NOMA technology multiplexes a signal in a power domain by using power splitting, multiple users may use a same frequency domain at a same time, para. 0119. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Makki to include Suh’s NOMA schemes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for a system that considers a service or UE sensitive to reliability and latency, para. 0003.
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 2, Makki does not disclose wherein the one or more NOMA schemes comprise one or more non-power-domain NOMA schemes. Suh discloses NOMA schemes may be classified into NOMA schemes applied to code domain and NOMA schemes applied to power domain, para. 0117, the code-domain NOMA series may be based on the existing code division multiple access (CDMA) technology, the code-domain NOMA series may consider at least one of an interleave-division multiple access (IDMA) scheme, a low density spreading aided CDMA (LDSCDMA) scheme, a multi user shared access (MUSA) scheme, a resource spread multiple access (RSMA) scheme, and a sparse code multiple access (SCMA) scheme, para. 0118. Suh discloses the power-domain NOMA may be a technology of multiplexing users through powers with different sizes based on power domain multiple access (PDMA), as the power-domain NOMA technology multiplexes a signal in a power domain by using power splitting, multiple users may use a same frequency domain at a same time, para. 0119. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Makki to include Suh’s NOMA schemes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for a system that considers a service or UE sensitive to reliability and latency, para. 0003.
Claim(s) 9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makki et al. in view of Ghanbarinejad et al. US 20230171745.
Regarding claim 9, The method of claim 1, Makki does not disclose wherein the two or more transmitting nodes consist of two or more child IAB nodes of the IAB node. Ghanbarinejad discloses an IAB system connected to a core network via an IAB donor, the IAB donor and includes an IAB-N1 such as parent node, an IAB-N2, another parent node, an IAB-N3 such as a child node and parent node, and an IAB-N4 such as a child node, para. 0069. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Makki to include Ghanbarinejad’s IAB system structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to facilitate better QoS by reducing connection interruptions and providing seamless connectivity in dynamic environments, para. 0076.
Regarding claim 11, The method of claim 1, Makki does not disclose wherein the two or more transmitting nodes consist of one or more child IAB nodes of the IAB node and one or more wireless communications devices served by the IAB node. Ghanbarinejad discloses an IAB system connected to a core network via an IAB donor, the IAB donor and includes an IAB-N1 such as parent node, an IAB-N2, another parent node, an IAB-N3 such as a child node and parent node, and an IAB-N4 such as a child node, para. 0069. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Makki to include Ghanbarinejad’s IAB system structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to facilitate better QoS by reducing connection interruptions and providing seamless connectivity in dynamic environments, para. 0076.
Regarding claim 12, The method of claim 1, Makki does not disclose wherein the two or more transmitting nodes consist of: a parent IAB node of the IAB node; and either one or more child IAB nodes of the IAB node, one or more wireless communications devices or both. Ghanbarinejad discloses an IAB system connected to a core network via an IAB donor, the IAB donor and includes an IAB-N1 such as parent node, an IAB-N2, another parent node, an IAB-N3 such as a child node and parent node, and an IAB-N4 such as a child node, para. 0069. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Makki to include Ghanbarinejad’s IAB system structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to facilitate better QoS by reducing connection interruptions and providing seamless connectivity in dynamic environments, para. 0076.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17, 20-21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues there is not a disclosure in Makki that clearly describes the specific set-based selection mechanism as claimed. Applicant submits that “independent Claim 1 is not anticipated by a generic disclosure of adaptive scheduling, pairing, or resource allocation and that Claim 1 requires selection from a set of multiple access schemes that expressly includes at least one class of schemes that enables simultaneous reception of signals from two or more transmitting nodes at the IAB node and at least one class of schemes that enables non-simultaneous reception of such signals at the IAB node”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Makki teaches the two or more nodes with its disclosure of one or more of access points and UEs sending their data rate requirements to another access point and based on obtained gains of the AP-AP and AP-UE links and the one or more data rate requirements, the access point determines the appropriate multiple access scheme. Makki discloses based on an instantaneous data rate request, the network may immediately switch to an appropriate multiple access scheme to achieve optimal results so that it can adapt the corresponding beamforming, time slots, and power levels. Examiner submits the appropriate multiple access scheme is either the disclosed NOMA or OMA schemes. Further, Makki discloses in Figure 3, achievable data rates of different links for different multiple access schemes, specifically, for both an OMA scheme (TDMA) and a NOMA scheme. NOMA scheme teaches the claimed one scheme that enables simultaneous reception of signals and OMA scheme teaches the claimed one scheme that enables non-simultaneous reception of signals. Thus, in light of the claim language, the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al. US 20190140741 discloses a resource allocation method for a non-orthogonal multiple access distribution of access network users communicatively coupled to a single transport medium also including allocating a first frequency and time domain resource to a first user and a second frequency and time domain resource to a second user of the access network users.
Lei et al. US 20200077402 discloses multiple access signatures may be used in non-orthogonal multiple access transmissions to provide differentiation between multiple concurrent NOMA transmission that use common time, frequency, and spatial resources.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights