DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9, 24-33 and 45 are pending in this application and claims 10-23, 34-44 and 46-48 are cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on 02/21/2022 (EP 22157854.5).
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 07/25/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, 24, 26, 30 and 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 3 recites “the method comprising” suggest amend to “the method comprising:” with a colon to define the method comprising following limitations. Similar issue exists claim 24 line 3; claim 24 line 8, claim 45 line 4 and claim 45 line 9.
Claim 1 line 13 recites “wherein the interworking …. communicated.” suggests applicant to use punctuation to separate phrases in the claim to avoid confusion and wordiness. Similar issue exist in claim 24 and 45.
Claim 3 recites “A method according to claims 1” suggests amend to “A method according to claim 1” for clarity purpose because there is only a single independent claim to depend on. Similar issue exists in claim 26.
Claim 8 line 4 recites “ACK/NACK feedback” suggest amend to “acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback” for clarity purpose. Similar issue exists in claim 30 line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 24-33, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 3 recites “part of a wireless communications network” is vague and indefinite because unclear whether a wireless communication network is the same as “infrastructure of a wireless communication network” or “another wireless communication network”. Similar issue exists in claim 24 line 3.
Claim 1 line 9 recite “the physical layer to or more other nodes of the network” is believe a typo limitation of “to or more”. Similar issue exists in claim 24 line 14 and claim 45 line 15.
Claim 2 line 1 recites “A method” is lack of antecedent basis issues whether a method refers to a new method of the same method of claim 1. Examiner suggests applicant to amend “A method” to “The method” for clarity purpose. Similar issue exists in the claims 3-9 and claims 25-33.
Claim 4 line 2 recites “can identify a different terminal point” for performing a functionality which constitute intended use, never actually takes place, therefore renders any recitation claimed after not be given patentable weight. The claim should be amended to recite more direct and positive language such as “to”, “that”, or “which”.
Claim 4 line 3 recites “same network node” is vague and indefinite because whether “same network node” refers to the “node” described in claim 1. Similar issue exist in claim 27 line 3.
Claim 25 line 1 recites “A node” is lack of antecedent basis issue whether a method refers to a new method of the same method of claim 1. Examiner suggests applicant to amend “A node” to “The node” for clarity purpose. Similar issue exists in the claims 25-33.
Claim 45 line 2 recites “wherein user plane data” is lack of antecedent basis issue because there is no discourse user plane data in the previous limitation in the claim.
Since the dependent claims 2-9 and 25-33 depend on corresponding the independent claim 1 or 24, they are rejected for the reason as described hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 24-33 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parkvall et al. (US 2021/0126726 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a method of operating a node in a network of nodes providing communication between parts which form an infrastructure equipment of a wireless communications network or which node forms a part of a wireless communications network (UE communicate with RAN/eNB see Parkvall: Fig.8), the method comprising
operating a protocol stack for receiving user plane data and transmitting user plane data, the protocol stack including a physical layer, a data link layer, and an interworking layer (protocol stack correspond to logical architecture that includes single RRC operating for LTE-NX DC operation from UE and ENB perspectives, where protocol stack includes PDCP layer corresponding to interworking layer, RLC/MAC layers corresponding to datalink layer and physical layer see Parkvall: ¶[0423]; Fig.6),
the interworking layer being configured to receive packets having a format comprising a header and a payload, the payload carrying user plane data, and to transmit the packets via the data link layer and the physical layer to or more other nodes of the network (RRC/PDCP layer receiving packets from UE or 5G eNB and each channel have MAC header and payload containing MAC elements and communicate from/to UE or eNB “The main benefit of PDCP layer integration is that it allows separate optimization of the lower layers for each access” see Parkvall: ¶[1503]; Fig.125; ¶[0571]; Fig.22; Fig.8), and
the interworking layer is configured to receive packets from one or more other nodes via the data link layer and the physical layer (RRC/PDCP receive packet from UE/5G eNB via RRC/MAC and PHY layers see Parkvall: Figs.122-125), the received packets having the format comprising the header and the payload carrying user plane data (MAC PDU packet include MAC header and MAC payload include logical channel and LCID values for UL-PDCH/DL-PDCH see Parkvall: Figs. 22-23; ¶[0593-0574]), wherein the interworking layer is configured to route the packets to and from one or more other network nodes using a routing table and the header of the packets transmitted and received via the data link layer and the physical layer to or from the one or more other nodes of the network (each self-backhauling AN should maintain a routing table that contains such next-hop routing information and context for all registered (normal) UEs and routing selection see Parkvall: ¶[1466-1467]; Fig.38-39) includes an index representing a value identifying an entry in the routing table which is used by the interworking layer to transmit the packets to or to receive the packets from the one or more other nodes of the network (routing table at each node forwarding identities to upstream node “A routing table can thus be established at each self-backhauling AN by forwarding the identities of descendant ANs to the upstream AN on the route tree. A logical control channel should be made available in NX, for forwarding these AN identities or other routing information in general” see Parkvall: ¶[1468]), the entry in the table for each index identifying a connection between one part of the infrastructure equipment and another part of the infrastructure equipment and a user equipment associated with the user data being communicated (each routing table include next-hop routing information and context for all UEs “each self-backhauling AN should maintain a routing table that contains such next-hop routing information and context for all registered (normal) UEs” see Parkvall: ¶[1466]).
Regarding claim 2, Parkvall taught a method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches the method comprising operating a protocol stack for a control plane data for controlling the user plane, the protocol stack for the control plane including the physical layer, the data link layer, and an interworking control layer, and the interworking control layer being configured to generate the index for each entry in the routing table of the interworking layer (protocol stack for single RRC or dual RRC operation includes physical layer , MAC/RLC and RRC/PDCP layers in Figs.6-7 and PDCP identifier for routing purpose see Parkvall: ¶[0388-0389]’ ¶[0679]).
Regarding claim 3, Parkvall taught a method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches wherein the routing table includes an entry for each index, each index representing a unique identifier of a user equipment, UE, a source address in the network of nodes and a destination address in the network of nodes, and the header of the packets includes the index (routing table include all the information next-hop routing include UE source and destination node and routing information “each self-backhauling AN should maintain a routing table that contains such next-hop routing information and context for all registered (normal) UEs. As the wireless environment can change over time, this routing table needs to be periodically updated at each self-backhauling AN, albeit relatively infrequently” see Parkvall: ¶[1466]).
Regarding claim 4, Parkvall taught a method according to claim 3 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches wherein the destination address or the source address of a plurality of indexes in the routing table can identify a different termination point within the same network node (each self-backhauling AN should maintain a routing table that contains such next-hop routing information and context for all registered (normal) UEs see Parkvall: ¶[1466]).
Regarding claim 5, Parkvall taught a method according to claim 4 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches wherein the destination address or the source address identifies one of medium access control, MAC, identifier or a hardware identifier (MAC LCID for UL-PDCH and DL-PDCH see Parkvall: Fig.23; ¶[0573-0574]).
Regarding claim 6, Parkvall taught a method according to claim 3 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches wherein the destination address or the source address of each index in the routing table identifies a user equipment or an application program being executed by the user equipment (each self-backhauling AN should maintain a routing table that contains such next-hop routing information and context for all registered (normal) UEs see Parkvall: ¶[1466]).
Regarding claim 7, Parkvall taught a method according to claim 3 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches wherein different indexes within the routing table identify the destination address or the source address of a different application program being executed by the same user equipment (routing table include next hop routing and context for all UE “each self-backhauling AN should maintain a routing table that contains such next-hop routing information and context for all registered (normal) UE” see Parkvall: ¶[1466]).
Regarding claim 8, Parkvall taught a method according to claim 3 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches wherein each index in the routing table includes an indication of one or more of a quality of service, QoS, management and paths establishment, a flow control, a link discovery and setup procedure, an acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement, ACK/NACK feedback, security information including at least one encryption key, an indication is to whether ciphering is applied or not, and an indication of an integrity protection algorithm and an associated key (LDC in the separate table include the index code for RS measurement feedback see Parkvall: ¶[0574]; ¶[0638]).
Regarding claim 9, Parkvall taught a method according to claim 3 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches wherein each index in the routing table includes an indication of one of a mobility of a user equipment and/or a mobility of an application program executed by a user equipment within the network of nodes (routing table include next hop routing and context for all UE “each self-backhauling AN should maintain a routing table that contains such next-hop routing information and context for all registered (normal) UE” see Parkvall: ¶[1466]).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 1 as set forth hereinabove. Claim 24 recites a node for forming part of a network nodes that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 2 as set forth hereinabove
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 3 as set forth hereinabove
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 4 as set forth hereinabove
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 5 as set forth hereinabove
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 6 as set forth hereinabove
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 7 as set forth hereinabove
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 8 as set forth hereinabove
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 9 as set forth hereinabove
Regarding claim 33, Parkvall taught the node according to claim 24 as described hereinabove. Parkvall further teaches wherein the routing table includes for each index an identification of an infrastructure equipment via which a UE for that entry has selected for communication to the wireless communications network or receive data from the wireless communications network, the unique identifier of the UE and the unique identifier of the infrastructure equipment representing a UE to infrastructure mapping (routing table include next hop routing and context for all UE “each self-backhauling AN should maintain a routing table that contains such next-hop routing information and context for all registered (normal) UE” see Parkvall: ¶[1466]).
Regarding claim 45, claim 45 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 1 as set forth hereinabove. Claim 45 recites a wireless communication network that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUANG W LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7AM-5PMET.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached on (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
August 1, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights