Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 07/22/2026.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed on 07/22/2026, Claims 1-5, 9, 16-17, 19-20, 24 have been amended; Claims 6 -8, 11, 15, 21-23, 26, 30 are canceled; therefore, 1-5, 9-10, 12-14, 16-20, 24-25, 27-29 are pending.
4. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/22/2026, pages 7-11 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
Applicant amended claim 4 and 19 properly; therefore, the 112(b) rejection on 4 and its dependent claim 5; and Claim 19 and its dependent claims 20 in the non-final office action 04/23/2026 are withdrawn.
However, new ground of rejection is found in claim 19 and its dependent claims 20 and is presented in this office action.
Applicant’s argument on claim 2 and 17 has been fully considered.
Examiner agreed that the SPEC states that: “"[t]he decision of whether to send
the traffic on fixed wireline Ethernet connections or NR interfaces may be based on, for
example, the network size, traffic patterns, and fiber availability." And “the IAB node is configured to use a radio or non-radio link, and hence a particular protocol stack, based on received signaling." ; in which, the IAB node is configured to use either a radio or non-radio link; however, it does not and could not use both radio and non-radio link simultaneously. Claim 2 and similarly claim 17, recites that: “the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node via the non-radio transport network and a radio transport network”; which means that the first node is communicated with the second one via both non-radio transport network and a radio transport network the same time, which is not supported by the SPEC.
Therefore, the 112(b) on Claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-5 and Claim 17 and its dependent claims 18 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been fully considered.
Basically, applicant argued that the prior arts (ZHUO et al. (WO 2021027949) and in view of Mukherjee et al. (US 20220210699)) does not discloses the amended limitation of : “communicating, with a second IAB network node, IAB data over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack” in amended independent claims, since:
“cited Figure 3 of Zhuo merely discloses a typical IAB network in which an IAB node (e.g., IAB node 5) communicates with another IAB node (e.g., IAB node 2 via a backhaul link. There is no disclosure in Zhuo that two IAB network nodes communicate via a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack. Even to the extent that Zhuo discloses that a wireless access network device is connected to the core network device in a wireless or wired manner," as alleged in the Office Action, the core network node device is not an IAB network node ".
“though Mukherjee discloses a "multi-RAT Integrated Access and Backhaul system," Mukherjee discloses that RAT 1 "is 3ʳᵈ Generation Partnership Project 5G New Radio radio access technology" and RAT 2 "is 802.11ay WLAN radio access technology." (Mukherjee, Figure 11; para. 74). Further, even though Mukherjee discloses that "the particular radio access technologies used in the embodiments, e.g., 802.11a radio access technology, is only example and other radio access technologies may be, and in some embodiments, are utilized," Mukherjee makes clear that such radio access technologies are wireless technologies utilized by wireless operators and wireless base stations. (Mukherjee, para. 74). There is no disclosure in Mukherjee that either of RAT 1 or RAT 2 may be a non-radio transport network. Additionally, even though Mukherjee discloses that the wireless system 1100 is coupled to a network 1124, e.g., the Internet, via a fiber transport communications link 1122 which connects or couples wireless base station 1102 to network 1124" (Mukherjee, para. 75), link 1122 is not a backhaul link between two IAB network nodes, but rather a link from a base station to the network 1124”.
(Remark, page 8-9)
Examiner’s Response:
After reviewing the claim limitations and the prior arts and updating search, examiner believe that the current prior arts (ZHUO et al. (WO 2021027949) and in view of Luo et al. (WO 2019/192524A1)) teach the aforementioned limitation. Follows are reason:
Luo discloses that “communicating, with a second IAB network node, IAB data over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack” in fig. 1, in which IAB network node communication with another IAB network node using wired connection; also in page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only”.
Therefore, the combination of ZHUO and Luo discloses the limitations of: “communicating, with a second IAB network node, IAB data over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack” in amended independent claims.
The applicant also argued that dependent claims should be allowed due to their dependency on independent claims.
Examiner’s Response:
As discussed above, the combination of ZHUO and Luo discloses the limitations of: “communicating, with a second IAB network node, IAB data over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack” in amended independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 2, it recites “wherein the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node via the non-radio transport network and a radio transport network”. However, it is not clear how the first network node communicate with second network node via both non-radio transport network and a radio transport network. Are the nodes using the two network simultaneously or separately? If a non-radio transport network is used, why needs to use a radio transport network at the same time? In addition to that, independent claim 1 already recites that: “ communicating, with a second IAB network node, IAB data over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack” only without radio transport network.
Thus the scope of the claim and its dependent claims 3-5 are unclear.
Examiner’s Note:
Examiner agreed that the SPEC states that: “"[t]he decision of whether to send
the traffic on fixed wireline Ethernet connections or NR interfaces may be based on, for
example, the network size, traffic patterns, and fiber availability." And “the IAB node is configured to use a radio or non-radio link, and hence a particular protocol stack, based on received signaling." ; in which, the IAB node is configured to use either a radio or non-radio link; however, it does not and could not use both radio and non-radio link simultaneously
7. Claim 17 and its dependent claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention for the similar reason as for claim 2 and its dependent claims.
8. Claim 19 and its dependent claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 19, it recites “change the link for communicating the IAB data from a link associated with a radio transport protocol stack to a link associated with the non- radio transport protocol stack” in “and based on the message, change the link for communicating the IAB data from a link associated with a radio transport protocol stack to a link associated with the non- radio transport protocol stack or from a link associated with the non-radio transport protocol stack to a link associated with the radio transport protocol stack”. However, since independent claim 16 (which claim 19 depends on) only supports communication “over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack”, it is not clear how the link associated with a radio transport protocol stack come from.
Thus the scope of the claim and its dependent claim 20 are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claims 1-3, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 24, 27-29 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHUO et al. (WO 2021027949) and in view of Luo et al. (WO 2019/192524A1).
Regarding claim 1, ZHUO teaches a method (fig. 3) by a first Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) network node implementing IAB, protocols (fig. 3, IAB node 5), the method comprising:
communicating, with a second IAB network node (fig. 3, IAB node 2) , IAB data (fig. 3, backhaul link) over a transport network via a transport protocol stack (as shown in fig. 3; page 10, The wireless access network device is connected to the core network device in a wireless or wired manner).
It is noticed that ZHUO does not disclose explicitly of IAB network nodes communicate with another IAB node over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack.
Luo discloses of IAB network nodes communicate with another IAB node over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack (fig. 1, in which IAB network node communication with another IAB network node using wired connection; also in page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only”; the non-radio transport protocol stack is inherent in a wired network).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that IAB network nodes communicate with another IAB node over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack as a modification to the method for the benefit of that nodes can communicate in wired method (page 3).
Regarding claim 16, ZHUO teaches a first Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) network node implementing IAB, protocols (fig. 3, IAB node 5), the first network node being configured to:
communicating, with a second IAB network node (fig. 3, IAB node 2) , Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) data (fig. 3, backhaul link) over a transport network via a transport protocol stack (as shown in fig. 3; page 10, The wireless access network device is connected to the core network device in a wireless or wired manner).
It is noticed that ZHUO does not disclose explicitly of IAB network nodes communicate with another IAB node over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack.
Luo discloses of IAB network nodes communicate with another IAB node over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack (fig. 1, in which IAB network node communication with another IAB network node using wired connection; also in page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only”; the non-radio transport protocol stack is inherent in a wired network).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that IAB network nodes communicate with another IAB node over a non-radio transport network via a non-radio transport protocol stack as a modification to the network node for the benefit of that nodes can communicate in wired method (page 3).
Regarding claim 2, the combination ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Luo further discloses that the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node via the non-radio transport network and a radio transport network (shown in fig. 1; page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only; radio transport network is shown in fig. 5); ZHUO further discloses that first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node via a radio transport network (fig. 3).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, ZHUO further discloses determining whether to transmit IAB data over the non-radio transport network or the radio transport network (page 10, … The wireless access network device is connected to the core network device in a wireless or wired manner; since the data can be transmitted with either wireless or wired manner, a decision has to be made whether over the non-radio transport network or the radio transport network ).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Luo further discloses that the non-radio transport protocol stack includes a wired physical layer, PHY, and a wired Medium Access Control, MAC carrying radio link control, RLC (fig. 1; in which, the network interface is wired interface and it uses non-radio transport protocol stack includes a wired physical layer, PHY, and a wired Medium Access Control, MAC carrying radio link control, RLC inherently), and ZHUO further discloses that Backhaul Adaptation Protocol, BAP (as shown in fig. 2; page 13-14, …The BAP layer exists on the DU side of the IAB host node, the intermediate IAB node, and the MT side that accesses the IAB node, and the BAP layer is above the RLC protocol layer. In addition, the MT and DU of the intermediate IAB node (for example, IAB node 1 in FIG. 2) may share a backhaul adaptation layer entity).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Luo further discloses that communicating the IAB data with the second network node comprises receiving the IAB data from the second network node over the non-radio transport network via the non-radio transport protocol stack (fig. 1; page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only), and ZHUO further discloses that transmitting the IAB data to a third network node (fig. 3, IAB node 1) over another non-radio transport network or a radio transport network (as shown in fig. 3, backhaul link).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Luo further discloses that communicating the IAB data with the second network node comprises transmitting the IAB data to the second network node over the non-radio transport network via the non-radio transport protocol stack (fig. 1; page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 13 as discussed above. In addition, ZHUO further discloses that receiving the IAB data from a third network node over another non-radio transport network via another non-radio transport protocol stack, or receiving the IAB data from the third network node (fig. 3, IAB node 1) over a radio transport network via a radio transport protocol stack (fig. 3, backhaul link).
Regarding claim 17, the combination ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, Luo further discloses that the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node via the non-radio transport network (fig. 1; page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only). ZHUO further discloses that first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node via a radio transport network (fig. 3).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 16’s rejection.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 17 as discussed above. In addition, ZHUO further discloses determining whether to transmit IAB data over the non-radio transport network or the radio transport network (page 10, … The wireless access network device is connected to the core network device in a wireless or wired manner; since the data can be transmitted with either wireless or wired manner, a decision has to be made whether over the non-radio transport network or the radio transport network ).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, Luo further discloses that the non-radio transport protocol stack includes a wired physical layer, PHY, and a wired Medium Access Control, MAC carrying radio link control, RLC (fig. 1; in which, the network interface is wired interface and it uses non-radio transport protocol stack includes a wired physical layer, PHY, and a wired Medium Access Control, MAC carrying radio link control, RLC inherently), and ZHUO further discloses that Backhaul Adaptation Protocol, BAP (as shown in fig. 2; page 13-14, …The BAP layer exists on the DU side of the IAB host node, the intermediate IAB node, and the MT side that accesses the IAB node, and the BAP layer is above the RLC protocol layer. In addition, the MT and DU of the intermediate IAB node (for example, IAB node 1 in FIG. 2) may share a backhaul adaptation layer entity).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 16’s rejection.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, Luo further discloses that communicating the IAB data with the second network node comprises receiving the IAB data from the second network node over the non-radio transport network via the non-radio transport protocol stack (fig. 1; page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only), and ZHUO further discloses that transmitting the IAB data to a third network node (fig. 3, IAB node 1) over another non-radio transport network or a radio transport network (as shown in fig. 3, backhaul link).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 16’s rejection.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, Luo further discloses that when communicating the IAB data with the second network node, the first network node is adapted to transmit the IAB data to the second network node over the non-radio transport network via the non-radio transport protocol stack (fig. 1; page 3, as: “the IAB donor refers to the IAB donor DU, the IAB donor DU refers to the DU with wired connection, and the IAB donor DU can be wired to the IAB donor CU. The IAB donor DU and the IAB donor CU may be built in, or may be wired only).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 16’s rejection.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 28 as discussed above. In addition, ZHUO further discloses that receiving the IAB data from a third network node over another non-radio transport network via another non-radio transport protocol stack, or receiving the IAB data from the third network node (fig. 3, IAB node 1) over a radio transport network via a radio transport protocol stack (fig. 3, backhaul link).
12. Claim 10, 25 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHUO et al. (WO 2021027949) and in view of Luo et al. (WO 2019/192524A1) and further in view of Aksu et al. (US 20200412456).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, ZHUO further discloses that the IAB data comprises IAB protocol data units (fig. 5b, Abstract, … a data packet containing the BAP packet header; which is a IAB protocol data unit ).
It is noticed that ZHUO does not disclose explicitly of encapsulating the IAB protocol data units over the non-radio transport protocol stack.
Aksu discloses of encapsulating the IAB protocol data units over the non-radio transport protocol stack (fig. 5A, step 530; paragraph 0035, … encapsulating the data and forwarding the data via an Ethernet MAC frame …).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that encapsulating the IAB protocol data units over the non-radio transport protocol stack as a modification to the method for the benefit of that transmit data in ethernet frame (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of ZHUO and Luo teaches the limitations recited in claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, ZHUO further discloses that the IAB data comprises IAB protocol data units (fig. 5b, Abstract, … a data packet containing the BAP packet header; which is a IAB protocol data unit).
It is noticed that ZHUO does not disclose explicitly of encapsulating the IAB protocol data units over the non-radio transport protocol stack.
Aksu discloses of encapsulating the IAB protocol data units over the non-radio transport protocol stack (fig. 5A, step 530; paragraph 0035, … encapsulating the data and forwarding the data via an Ethernet MAC frame …).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that encapsulating the IAB protocol data units over the non-radio transport protocol stack as a modification to the node for the benefit of that transmit data in ethernet frame (fig. 5A).
13. Conclusion
. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
14. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
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.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights