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 .
Introduction
The claims 1-25 are pending in this application. This is a non-final office action in response to Application Number 18/786,676 filed on 29 July 2024; the instant application is a CON of PCT/JP2023/002043 filed on 24 January 2023 and claims foreign priority to Japanese application 2022-014440 filed on 2 February 2022. The applicant of record is Canon Kabushiki Kaisha and the inventor of record is Koji Churei.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 29 July 2024, 22 August 2025, 20 November 2025, and 4 February 2026 were filed either on or after the filing date of the instant application on 29 July 2024 and before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims have been considered according to the latest Patent Eligibility Guidelines and are considered eligible.
Claim Objection
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “far from” in line 3. This is a relative term. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barac et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0334248, provisional 63/221,207).
Regarding claim 1, Barac disclosed a control apparatus that functions as a donor of Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) which is a cellular communication standard defined by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) (see Barac [0243], provisional page 33 lines 16-17: telecommunications network implements 3GPP | Fig. 11, provisional Fig. 11A, page 21: IAB3 is included in communication paths that each have different donor-DUs and CUs), the apparatus comprising:
a transmission unit (see Barac Fig. 15, provisional Fig. 14, page 39: transceiver circuitry, antenna) configured to, in a case where an IAB node joining in both (examiner notes that “joining in both” does not necessarily require that the node is simultaneously connected to both network topologies and can be interpreted as being functionally equivalent to migrating between two network topologies) a first network topology that is provided by another control apparatus different from the control apparatus and includes another IAB donor, and a second network topology including the IAB donor exists (see Barac Fig. 11, provisional Fig. 11A, page 21: IAB3 is included in communication paths that each have different donor-DUs and CUs | Fig. 8, provisional Fig. 8 page 16: IAB-node-3 migrates from CU-1 to CU-2; [0080], provisional page 14 lines 21-25: IAB-node-3 migrates from CU-1 to CU-2), transmit, to the other IAB donor, an obtaining request to obtain status information regarding a communication path including at least the IAB node on the second network topology including the other IAB donor (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27: CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2; [0202], provisional page 27 first paragraph: “…either or both of the CU1 and the CU2 may request traffic status information”); and
a reception unit (see Barac Fig. 15, provisional Fig. 14, page 39: transceiver circuitry, antenna) configured to receive a response to the obtaining request (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27: CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2; [0202], provisional page 27 first paragraph: “…In response to the requests for traffic status information…, the CU1 and/or the CU2 may provide the traffic load status”).
Regarding claim 2, Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining request is a request transmitted to the other IAB donor using Xn application protocol (XnAP) (see Barac [0195], provisional page 25 line 32 – page 26 line 5: communication via Xn connection via CU1-CU2, CU1-Donor DU2 | Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27: CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2; [0202], provisional page 27 first paragraph: “…either or both of the CU1 and the CU2 may request traffic status information”).
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.
Claims 3-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0180096) in view of Barac et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0334248, provisional 63/221,207).
Regarding claim 3, Wei disclosed a control apparatus that manages communication of a cellular communication standard defined by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) (see Wei [0059]: “An infrastructure equipment which is physically connected to the core network and operated in accordance with an example arrangement may provide communications resources to other infrastructure equipment and so is referred to as a ‘donor node’…”; Fig. 7 #110 IAB Donor includes DU #42 and CU #40 | [0071]: “Examples of wireless access interface standards include the third generation partnership project (3GPP)-specified GPRS/EDGE (“2G”), WCDMA (UMTS) and related standards such as HSPA and HSPA+ (“3G”), LTE and related standards including LTE-A (“4G”), and NR (“5G”)…”), the apparatus comprising:
a monitoring unit (see Wei Fig. 3, [0045]: hardware components of network devices; examiner interprets controller as being functionally equivalent to “monitoring unit”) configured to monitor, of a first communication path managed by the control apparatus, a communication path from the control apparatus to a relay device included in the first communication path (see Wei Fig. 11, [0111]: “In contrast FIG. 11 illustrates an example of inter-donor IAB node migration…Initially, the end IAB node 1010 is connected to the second IAB relay node 1014 via a backhaul link 1022. In an example of inter-donor migration, the backhaul link 1022 may fail and the end IAB node 1010 may form a new connection with the third IAB relay node 1018 via a backhaul link 1024.”; [0181]: “…determining that the migrating communications node should migrate from the first attachment point comprises detecting one or more of a radio link failure (RLF), a topology update, a change in a route for communicating the data between the migrating node and the core network and a change in a mobility status of the migrating node.”), and obtain first status information regarding the communication path (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1504 “Determine that Migrating Node should migrate”, #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”); and
an obtaining unit (see Wei Fig. 3, [0045]: hardware components of network devices; examiner interprets receiver as being functionally equivalent to “obtaining unit”) configured to, in a case where the relay device is included in a second communication path managed by another control apparatus different from the control apparatus(examiner notes that the phrasing of this portion of the limitation does not require simultaneous dual-connectivity and allows for the interpretation that the relay device is included in a second path due to inter-donor/inter-CU migration | see Wei Fig. 11, [0111]: “In contrast FIG. 11 illustrates an example of inter-donor IAB node migration…Initially, the end IAB node 1010 is connected to the second IAB relay node 1014 via a backhaul link 1022. In an example of inter-donor migration, the backhaul link 1022 may fail and the end IAB node 1010 may form a new connection with the third IAB relay node 1018 via a backhaul link 1024.”), obtain, from the other control apparatus (see Barac combination below), second status information regarding, of the second communication path, a communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Wei did not explicitly disclose that the status information about the inter-donor path is obtained via inter-CU communication, i.e. “from the other control apparatus”, however in a related art, Barac disclosed CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2 (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Barac to further clarify that information about the inter-donor / inter-CU path would be exchanged via CUs. Including Barac’s teachings would ensure dynamic control of the network resources for load balancing traffic when two CUs are involved (see Barac [0143]; provisional p. 23 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 4, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a control unit (see Wei Fig. 3, [0045]: hardware components of network devices; examiner interprets controller as being functionally equivalent to “control unit”) configured to control communication of the relay device based on the first status information and the second status information (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1504 “Determine that Migrating Node should migrate”, #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Regarding claim 5, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the obtaining unit obtains the second status information by transmitting, to the other control apparatus, a message that requests the second status information (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27: CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2; [0202], provisional page 27 first paragraph: “…either or both of the CU1 and the CU2 may request traffic status information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Barac to further clarify how information about the inter-donor / inter-CU path would be exchanged via CUs. Including Barac’s teachings would ensure dynamic control of the network resources for load balancing traffic when two CUs are involved (see Barac [0143]; provisional p. 23 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 6, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in a case where the control apparatus controls the relay device, the obtaining unit obtains the second status information (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Regarding claim 7, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a notification unit configured to notify the other control apparatus of the first status information (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27: CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2; [0202], provisional page 27 first paragraph: “…either or both of the CU1 20 and the CU2 30 may request traffic status information at 40. In particular embodiments, the request(s) may be timer or trigger based. In response to the requests for traffic status information (or alternatively preemptively and/or without receiving a request), the CU1 20 and/or the CU2 30 may provide the traffic load status, at 50…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Barac to further clarify how information about the inter-donor / inter-CU path would be exchanged via CUs. Including Barac’s teachings would ensure dynamic control of the network resources for load balancing traffic when two CUs are involved (see Barac [0143]; provisional p. 23 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 8, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 7, wherein in a case where a message that requests the first status information is received from the other control apparatus, the notification unit notifies the other control apparatus of the first status information (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27: CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2; [0202], provisional page 27 first paragraph: “…either or both of the CU1 20 and the CU2 30 may request traffic status information at 40. In particular embodiments, the request(s) may be timer or trigger based. In response to the requests for traffic status information (or alternatively preemptively and/or without receiving a request), the CU1 20 and/or the CU2 30 may provide the traffic load status, at 50…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Barac to further clarify how information about the inter-donor / inter-CU path would be exchanged via CUs. Including Barac’s teachings would ensure dynamic control of the network resources for load balancing traffic when two CUs are involved (see Barac [0143]; provisional p. 23 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 9, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the notification unit notifies the other control apparatus of the first status information in a predetermined cycle (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27: CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2; [0202], provisional page 27 first paragraph: “…either or both of the CU1 20 and the CU2 30 may request traffic status information at 40. In particular embodiments, the request(s) may be timer or trigger based. In response to the requests for traffic status information (or alternatively preemptively and/or without receiving a request), the CU1 20 and/or the CU2 30 may provide the traffic load status, at 50…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Barac to further clarify how information about the inter-donor / inter-CU path would be exchanged via CUs. Including Barac’s teachings would ensure dynamic control of the network resources for load balancing traffic when two CUs are involved (see Barac [0143]; provisional p. 23 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 10, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the monitoring unit transmits, to an apparatus included in the communication path from the control apparatus to the relay device on the first communication path, a message to confirm status information, receives a response to the message, and obtains the first status information (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27: CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2; [0202], provisional page 27 first paragraph: “…either or both of the CU1 20 and the CU2 30 may request traffic status information at 40. In particular embodiments, the request(s) may be timer or trigger based. In response to the requests for traffic status information (or alternatively preemptively and/or without receiving a request), the CU1 20 and/or the CU2 30 may provide the traffic load status, at 50…” | [0223], provisional page 29 lines 10-11: CU2 responds to the request from CU1 with an acknowledgement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Barac to further clarify how information about the inter-donor / inter-CU path would be exchanged via CUs. Including Barac’s teachings would ensure dynamic control of the network resources for load balancing traffic when two CUs are involved (see Barac [0143]; provisional p. 23 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 11, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first status information includes a free space of a communication buffer in an apparatus included in the communication path from the control apparatus to the relay device on the first communication path, and the second status information includes a free space of a communication buffer in an apparatus included in the communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device on the second communication path (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Regarding claim 12, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first status information includes information capable of specifying whether a Radio Link Failure (RLF) has occurred in a link between the control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the control apparatus to the relay device on the first communication path (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network…”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”), and
the second status information includes information capable of specifying whether an RLF has occurred in a link between the other control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device on the second communication path (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network…”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Regarding claim 13, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first status information includes information representing a reception intensity of a radio wave in an apparatus included in the communication path from the control apparatus to the relay device on the first communication path, and the second status information includes information representing a reception intensity of a radio wave in an apparatus included in the communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device on the second communication path (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]) | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Regarding claim 14, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first status information includes information representing a time required for propagation of a signal between the control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the control apparatus to the relay device on the first communication path, and the second status information includes information representing a time required for propagation of a signal between the other control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device on the second communication path (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]) | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Regarding claim 15, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 4, wherein in a case where communication with the relay device or an apparatus connected on a side of the relay device far (examiner notes that “far” is a relative term) from the control apparatus on the first communication path is performed, the control unit decides, based on the first status information and the second status information, whether to perform communication using a communication path between the other control apparatus and the relay device on the second communication path or perform communication without using the communication path (see Wei [0131]: “Generally, in both known systems and in embodiments of the present technique, most of a route selection procedure between nodes in a multi-hop system can be based either on a centralised manner or a distributed manner. In a centralised scheme, there will be a central IAB node (which may be a donor IAB node) which will decide the route between nodes and may need to distribute this route information to each node…” | [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Regarding claim 16, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 15, wherein in a case where the first status information represents a free space of a first communication buffer in an apparatus between the control apparatus and the relay device, and the second status information represents a free space of a second communication buffer in an apparatus between the other control apparatus and the relay device (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”),
the control unit decides, based on a fact that the free space of the first communication buffer is larger than the free space of the second communication buffer, to perform communication preferentially using a communication path between the control apparatus and the relay device on the first communication path (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed…The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice), and
the control unit decides, based on a fact that the free space of the first communication buffer is smaller than the free space of the second communication buffer, to perform communication preferentially using a communication path between the other control apparatus and the relay device on the second communication path (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed…The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice).
Regarding claim 17, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 15, wherein in a case where the first status information represents a first reception intensity of a radio wave in an apparatus between the control apparatus and the relay device, and the second status information represents a second reception intensity of a radio wave in an apparatus between the other control apparatus and the relay device (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]) | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”),
the control unit decides, based on a fact that the first reception intensity is higher than the second reception intensity, to perform communication preferentially using a communication path between the control apparatus and the relay device on the first communication path (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice), and
the control unit decides, based on a fact that the first reception intensity is lower than the second reception intensity, to perform communication preferentially using a communication path between the other control apparatus and the relay device on the second communication path (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice).
Regarding claim 18, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 17, wherein in a case where the first status information further represents a free space of a first communication buffer in an apparatus between the control apparatus and the relay device, the second status information further represents a free space of a second communication buffer in an apparatus between the other control apparatus and the relay device, and both the free space of the first communication buffer and the free space of the second communication buffer exceed a predetermined value, the control unit makes a decision based on the first reception intensity and the second reception intensity (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed…The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice).
Regarding claim 19, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 15, wherein in a case where the first status information represents a first time required for propagation of a signal between the control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the control apparatus to the relay device, and the second status information represents a second time required for propagation of a signal between the other control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]) | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed...The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”),
the control unit decides, based on a fact that the first time is shorter than the second time, to perform communication preferentially using the communication path between the control apparatus and the relay device on the first communication path (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed…The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice), and
the control unit decides, based on a fact that the first time is longer than the second time, to perform communication preferentially using the communication path between the other control apparatus and the relay device on the second communication path (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed…The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice).
Regarding claim 20, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 19, wherein in a case where the first status information further represents a free space of a first communication buffer in an apparatus between the control apparatus and the relay device, the second status information further represents a free space of a second communication buffer in an apparatus between the other control apparatus and the relay device, and both the free space of the first communication buffer and the free space of the second communication buffer exceed a predetermined value, the control unit makes a decision based on the first time and the second time (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed…The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice).
Regarding claim 21, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 15, wherein in a case where whether a Radio Link Failure (RLF) has occurred in a link between the control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the control apparatus to the relay device is specified by the first status information, and whether an RLF has occurred in a link between the other control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device is specified by the second status information, the control unit decides not to use the communication path on which the RLF has occurred (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network…”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0144]: “…The IAB node which declared RLF may seek to re-establish connection to the IAB network. In some embodiments, during re-establishment, it may be desirable to prioritise connection to either the donor IAB node which originally served the IAB node which declared RLF, or a child node of the donor IAB node which originally served the IAB node which declared RLF (intra-donor re-establishment). The intra-donor re-establishment may be prioritised over a connection to a different donor IAB node or a child node of the different IAB node (inter-donor re-establishment). In an example, the prioritisation may be achieved by only sending RRC re-establishment request messages to the donor IAB node originally serving the IAB node which declared RLF or one of the child nodes of the donor IAB node originally serving the IAB node which declared RLF.”; [0145]: “In some embodiments, a CU may indicate to the IAB node which declared RLF whether or not intra-donor re-establishment is of a higher priority…”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether or not a link with a previous RLF is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice).
Regarding claim 22, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 15, wherein in a case where the first status information represents that a Radio Link Failure (RLF) has not occurred in a link between the control apparatus and an apparatus included in the communication path from the control apparatus to the relay device, and a free space of a communication buffer on the communication path exceeds a predetermined value, the control unit decides to use the communication path between the control apparatus and the relay device on the first communication path (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network…”; [0132]: “…Other indicators, along with the indication of whether each route would involve an intra-node or inter-node migration, may be included in the table. These indicators may include at least one or more of: a link quality, link capacity or other QoS parameters such as latency and bit rate….”; [0144]: “…The IAB node which declared RLF may seek to re-establish connection to the IAB network. In some embodiments, during re-establishment, it may be desirable to prioritise connection to either the donor IAB node which originally served the IAB node which declared RLF, or a child node of the donor IAB node which originally served the IAB node which declared RLF (intra-donor re-establishment). The intra-donor re-establishment may be prioritised over a connection to a different donor IAB node or a child node of the different IAB node (inter-donor re-establishment). In an example, the prioritisation may be achieved by only sending RRC re-establishment request messages to the donor IAB node originally serving the IAB node which declared RLF or one of the child nodes of the donor IAB node originally serving the IAB node which declared RLF.”; [0145]: “In some embodiments, a CU may indicate to the IAB node which declared RLF whether or not intra-donor re-establishment is of a higher priority…”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…” | examiner notes that the combination of parameters, as well as whether or not a link with a previous RLF is desirable and whether a larger or smaller parameter is desirable, to select a candidate path is a matter of implementation choice).
Regarding claim 23, Wei-Barac disclosed the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the control apparatus and the other control apparatus are IAB donors in Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) of the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), and the relay device is an IAB node (see Wei Fig. 11: inter-donor migration | [0059]: “An infrastructure equipment which is physically connected to the core network and operated in accordance with an example arrangement may provide communications resources to other infrastructure equipment and so is referred to as a ‘donor node’. An infrastructure equipment which acts as an intermediate node (i.e. one which forms a part of the route but is not acting as a donor node) is referred to as a ‘relay node’…”).
Regarding claim 24, the claim contains the limitations, substantially as claimed, as described in claim 3 above. Examiner notes that claim 3 describes a control apparatus whereas claim 24 describes a control method. Wei disclosed, as recited in claim 24: A control method executed by a control apparatus that manages communication of a cellular communication standard defined by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) (see Wei [0059]: “An infrastructure equipment which is physically connected to the core network and operated in accordance with an example arrangement may provide communications resources to other infrastructure equipment and so is referred to as a ‘donor node’…”; Fig. 7 #110 IAB Donor includes DU #42 and CU #40 | [0071]: “Examples of wireless access interface standards include the third generation partnership project (3GPP)-specified GPRS/EDGE (“2G”), WCDMA (UMTS) and related standards such as HSPA and HSPA+ (“3G”), LTE and related standards including LTE-A (“4G”), and NR (“5G”)…”), the method comprising:
monitoring, of a first communication path managed by the control apparatus, a communication path from the control apparatus to a relay device included in the first communication path (see Wei Fig. 11, [0111]: “In contrast FIG. 11 illustrates an example of inter-donor IAB node migration…Initially, the end IAB node 1010 is connected to the second IAB relay node 1014 via a backhaul link 1022. In an example of inter-donor migration, the backhaul link 1022 may fail and the end IAB node 1010 may form a new connection with the third IAB relay node 1018 via a backhaul link 1024.”; [0181]: “…determining that the migrating communications node should migrate from the first attachment point comprises detecting one or more of a radio link failure (RLF), a topology update, a change in a route for communicating the data between the migrating node and the core network and a change in a mobility status of the migrating node.”), and obtaining first status information regarding the communication path (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1504 “Determine that Migrating Node should migrate”, #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”); and
in a case where the relay device is included in a second communication path managed by another control apparatus different from the control apparatus (examiner notes that the phrasing of this portion of the limitation does not require simultaneous dual-connectivity and allows for the interpretation that the relay device is included in a second path due to inter-donor/inter-CU migration | see Wei Fig. 11, [0111]: “In contrast FIG. 11 illustrates an example of inter-donor IAB node migration…Initially, the end IAB node 1010 is connected to the second IAB relay node 1014 via a backhaul link 1022. In an example of inter-donor migration, the backhaul link 1022 may fail and the end IAB node 1010 may form a new connection with the third IAB relay node 1018 via a backhaul link 1024.”), obtaining, from the other control apparatus (see Barac combination below), second status information regarding, of the second communication path, a communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Wei did not explicitly disclose that the status information about the inter-donor path is obtained via inter-CU communication, i.e. “from the other control apparatus”, however in a related art, Barac disclosed CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2 (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Barac to further clarify that information about the inter-donor / inter-CU path would be exchanged via CUs. Including Barac’s teachings would ensure dynamic control of the network resources for load balancing traffic when two CUs are involved (see Barac [0143]; provisional p. 23 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 25, the claim contains the limitations, substantially as claimed, as described in claim 3 above. Examiner notes that claim 3 describes a control apparatus whereas claim 25 describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Wei disclosed, as recited in claim 25: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a program (see Wei [0046]: controllers carry out instructions stored on a computer readable medium) for causing a computer included in a control apparatus that manages communication of a cellular communication standard defined by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) (see Wei [0059]: “An infrastructure equipment which is physically connected to the core network and operated in accordance with an example arrangement may provide communications resources to other infrastructure equipment and so is referred to as a ‘donor node’…”; Fig. 7 #110 IAB Donor includes DU #42 and CU #40 | [0071]: “Examples of wireless access interface standards include the third generation partnership project (3GPP)-specified GPRS/EDGE (“2G”), WCDMA (UMTS) and related standards such as HSPA and HSPA+ (“3G”), LTE and related standards including LTE-A (“4G”), and NR (“5G”)…”) to:
monitor, of a first communication path managed by the control apparatus, a communication path from the control apparatus to a relay device included in the first communication path (see Wei Fig. 11, [0111]: “In contrast FIG. 11 illustrates an example of inter-donor IAB node migration…Initially, the end IAB node 1010 is connected to the second IAB relay node 1014 via a backhaul link 1022. In an example of inter-donor migration, the backhaul link 1022 may fail and the end IAB node 1010 may form a new connection with the third IAB relay node 1018 via a backhaul link 1024.”; [0181]: “…determining that the migrating communications node should migrate from the first attachment point comprises detecting one or more of a radio link failure (RLF), a topology update, a change in a route for communicating the data between the migrating node and the core network and a change in a mobility status of the migrating node.”), and obtain first status information regarding the communication path (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1504 “Determine that Migrating Node should migrate”, #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”); and
in a case where the relay device is included in a second communication path managed by another control apparatus different from the control apparatus (examiner notes that the phrasing of this portion of the limitation does not require simultaneous dual-connectivity and allows for the interpretation that the relay device is included in a second path due to inter-donor/inter-CU migration | see Wei Fig. 11, [0111]: “In contrast FIG. 11 illustrates an example of inter-donor IAB node migration…Initially, the end IAB node 1010 is connected to the second IAB relay node 1014 via a backhaul link 1022. In an example of inter-donor migration, the backhaul link 1022 may fail and the end IAB node 1010 may form a new connection with the third IAB relay node 1018 via a backhaul link 1024.”), obtain, from the other control apparatus (see Barac combination below), second status information regarding, of the second communication path, a communication path from the other control apparatus to the relay device (see Wei Fig. 10: intra-donor migration; Fig. 11: inter-donor migration; Fig. 12: comparing unweighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 13: comparing weighted costs associated with intra-donor migration and inter-donor migration; Fig. 15 #1506: “Determine Second Attachment Point”; #1508 “Migrate Communications Node” | [0101]: inter-/intra-donor IAB node migration may be triggered based on a variety of reasons, e.g., RLF (see [0102]), topology update (see [0103]), route change (see [0104]), mobility (see [0105]); [0144]: determining that IAB node has lost connection to its donor IAB node and declaring RLF | [0120]: “On the other hand, the IAB link cost cannot be defined by a straightforward definition. It could be variable and dynamically changed. For example, the link (channel) quality may have an impact on it, or the load of a node's processing may have an impact on it. There may be pre-defined preferences; for example, a node may have a good directional antenna. Therefore, the path cost, in the context of IAB networks, is no longer simply a one-to-one mapping of link capacity. The cost calculation may need to take multiple factors into account. For example, these factors may include the sum of link capacity, stability of channel quality, and the room of processing load at each node, etc. In accordance with some embodiments, an indication of whether paths would require an inter-node migration or an intra-node migration is included in the path cost calculation.”; [0126]: “The nodes report the link capacity (quality) and the processing load to the network. Then, the network decides the weight of each link. The network may broadcast the link cost and its weight. Alternatively, each node may calculate the cost weight based on its own measurement and report this to the network.”; [0151]: “The determining of the second attachment point may include selecting a route from a plurality of candidate routes or communicating the data between the migrating communications node and the core network based on a route cost calculated for each of the plurality of candidate routes…”).
Wei did not explicitly disclose that the status information about the inter-donor path is obtained via inter-CU communication, i.e. “from the other control apparatus”, however in a related art, Barac disclosed CU1 and CU2 exchanging traffic load status information prior to CU1 making the decision to offload traffic to CU2 (see Barac Fig. 12; provisional Fig. 11B, page 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Barac to further clarify that information about the inter-donor / inter-CU path would be exchanged via CUs. Including Barac’s teachings would ensure dynamic control of the network resources for load balancing traffic when two CUs are involved (see Barac [0143]; provisional p. 23 lines 5-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela Widhalm de Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)272-1035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6am-2:30pm EST.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at (571)272-3889. 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.
/ANGELA WIDHALM DE RODRIGUEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights