DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
In response to the application filed on 05/19/2026, claims 1-24 and 41-44 were cancelled, and claims 25-40 are currently pending for the examination. The present application, filed on or after March 1wl16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) have been placed in the application file, and the information referred therein has been considered as to the merits.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 – Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea)
Claims 25-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether the claim elements amount to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A, Prong One – The Claims Recite an Abstract Idea
The claims recite limitations including:
“configuring the non-regenerative mode being activated in response to a request to forward signal data that includes delay-sensitive data,” and
“configuring the regenerative relay mode being activated in response to a request to forward signal data that does not include delay-sensitive data.”
These limitations describe classifying information based on a characteristic of the data (delay-sensitive vs. not delay-sensitive) and selecting a processing mode accordingly.
Such activity amounts to evaluating information and making a decision based on the evaluation, which falls within the category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity, both of which are abstract ideas.
Courts have consistently held that claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and making a decision based on the analysis are abstract ideas.
For example:
In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court held that claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results were abstract ideas.
In Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court held that collecting, recognizing, and storing data constitutes an abstract idea.
In CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the court held that processes that can be performed mentally or using pen and paper are abstract ideas.
Similarly, the claimed steps of determining whether signal data is delay-sensitive and selecting a corresponding relay mode merely involve analyzing information and making a decision based on that information, which could be performed mentally or through basic decision logic.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – The Claims Do Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
The claims do not include additional elements that meaningfully limit the abstract idea or integrate it into a practical application.
The additional elements merely involve generic network components and communication operations performing their conventional functions, such as forwarding signal data or configuring relay modes.
These elements do not:
improve the functioning of a computer or network,
effect a particular technological improvement, or
apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technological environment.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – No Inventive Concept
The claims also fail to include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The additional elements simply apply the abstract idea using generic communication or network operations, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that implementing an abstract idea on generic computer or network components does not provide an inventive concept.
See, for example:
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) – implementing an abstract idea using generic computer functions does not make the idea patent eligible.
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – generic computer implementation of an abstract idea is insufficient.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) – merely applying an abstract idea on a computer does not add significantly more.
Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Because the claims are directed to the abstract idea of analyzing signal data characteristics and selecting a relay mode based on that analysis, and because the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 2022/0038970 A1) in view of Baroudi (US 6,487,217 B1), and further in view of Speight (US 2017/0111840 A1).
Regarding claim 25; LIU teaches an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to cause the apparatus at least to:
configure, by a donor node in a network, an integrated access backhaul node within the network as supporting a non-regenerative relay mode and a regenerative relay mode,
the non-regenerative mode being activated in response to a request to forward signal data that includes delay-sensitive data (See Fig. 4: IAB node such as Child Node 1 or Child Node 2 (i.e., donor node) can not only operate in the Decode and Forward (DF) mode, but also can operate in the Amplify and Forward (AF) mode. (i.e., non-regenerative mode). ¶ [0166]),
the regenerative relay mode being activated in response to a request to forward signal data that does not include delay-sensitive data (See Fig. 4: IAB node such as Child Node 1 or Child Node 2 (i.e., donor node) can not only operate in the Decode and Forward (DF) mode (i.e., regenerative relay mode), but also can operate in the Amplify and Forward (AF) mode. (i.e., non-regenerative mode). ¶ [0166]).
LIU doesn’t explicitly provide forwarding delay-sensitive data.
However, Baroudi discloses forwarding delay-sensitive data (See Fig. 12: see steps 220-228, storing the delay sensitive information only and transmitting the frame containing the delay sensitive information only…because a system may decide to give all delay sensitive information priority over non-delay sensitive information. Col. 9, Lines 46-55 and Col. 10, Lines 4-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide forwarding delay-sensitive data as taught by Baroudi to have incorporated in the system of LIU, so that it would provide two different solutions: In the first, one of the type-of-service bits 26 is used to signify whether the data is delay sensitive or not. Thus, a network device supporting delay-sensitive transmission will look to this bit to determine what precedence to give the data in the queue holding data waiting for transmission over the network. And the second solution developed for the transmission of voice over IP involves the use of a Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP). In these systems, in order to successfully transmit voice from one node to another, every node in the chain must be one that honors the RSVP system. Baroudi-Col 3 and lines 10-25.
Neither LIU nor teaches forwarding signal data that doesn’t include delay-sensitive data
However, Speight teaches the method of forwarding signal data that doesn’t include delay-sensitive data (Speight-a first internet protocol, IP, address associated with mesh functionality to route/forward low priority, high delay tolerant data (i.e. non delay-sensitive data) via an edge router and the cellular network node. See ¶ [0122] and Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide forwarding the data not including delay-sensitive data as taught by Baroudi to have incorporated in the system of LIU, so that it would provide to select internet connectivity using either: a first internet protocol, IP, address associated with mesh functionality to route low priority, high delay tolerant data via an edge router and the cellular network node; or a second IP address associated with direct connection to the cellular network node for high priority, low delay tolerant data. Speight-Abstract.
Regarding claim 26; LIU in view of Baroudi discloses the apparatus wherein the delay sensitive data is included in an ultra-reliable low latency communication signal (Baroudi- Frame relay was designed in response to the increase in high speed, reliable, digital communications mediums. It was originally conceived as an interface for use over ISDN lines, however it has also gained acceptance in other high speed networks. Frame Relay provides for a very simple protocol, since error correcting capability need only be minimal given the high reliability of the communications medium. Col. 3, Lines 44-55).
Regarding claim 27; LIU in view of Baroudi discloses the apparatus wherein the integrated access backhaul node includes (i) a repeater configured to perform a non-regenerative relay operation on a received signal that includes delay-sensitive data (Baroudi-See Fig. 12: see steps 220-228, storing the delay sensitive information only and transmitting the frame containing the delay sensitive information only…because a system may decide to give all delay sensitive information priority over non-delay sensitive information. Col. 9, Lines 46-55 and Col. 10, Lines 4-9) and (ii) a mobile terminal and distributed unit both configured to perform a regenerative relay operation on a received signal (LIU- See Fig. 4: IAB node such as Child Node 1 or Child Node 2 (i.e., donor node) can not only operate in the Decode and Forward (DF) mode (i.e., regenerative relay mode), but also can operate in the Amplify and Forward (AF) mode. (i.e., non-regenerative mode). ¶ [0166]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-40 are objected to as being dependent upon the 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.
Mladin et al. (US 2021/0127343 A1 to discuss the method for 5G Delay Tolerant Data Services).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAI AUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-3507. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, Alt Fridays, 7:30 AM- 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAI AUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights