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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 6, 8-10, 13-15, 19, 21-23, 26-31, 34, 42-44, and 46-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments (canceling subject matter included in allowable subject matter).
Claim Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4 include “provide the information that identifies the first power and the second power to the second wireless node or the third wireless node” which should be “provide the information that identifies the first power [[and]] or the second power to the second wireless node or the third wireless node” to obviate written description/new matter issues. 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 48-53 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 48: lines 5-6 include “receive signaling that includes information that identifies: a first power”, however, line 10 includes “determine the first power”, line 14 includes “wherein the first power and the second power are configured”, and line 20 includes “provide information that identifies the first power” which includes ambiguity as to whether A) the received information identifies first power that has been configured e.g. by another device, or B1) whether the determine limitation is intended to perform some type of update or configuring of the first power; further, C) whether the “provide information” limitation C1) is related to the first power identified in the received signaling, C2) is related to some updated [by the first node] first power, or C3) something else; D) something else is intended. Limitations regarding “second power” are substantially similarly ambiguous. In a review of the application, examination continued on the assumption information related to power is identified in signaling, functions/analyses may be or have been performed to determine an update for the power, and information regarding the power / updated power is transmitted to respective transmitters. The examiner respectfully recommends clearly and explicitly elucidating functions performed and tie the functions to the entities performing the functions and the resulting values/steps/etc. of the functions.
Regarding claim 49: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 48, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 48.
Regarding claim 50: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 48, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 48.
Regarding claim 51: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 48, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 48.
Regarding claim 52: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 48, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 48; further, claim language includes “wherein the first power and the second power are configured for concurrent transmission and reception”, which is ambiguous as to whether the limitation is similar to A) “concurrent transmission and reception” of claim 48 in line 19 (related to first node thus, first node receiving one signal and transmitting one signal), B) concurrent transmission and reception for both second node and third node which implies first node simultaneously receives signals from both second node and third node while simultaneously transmitting signals to both second node and third node, which does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure, or C) something else. Examination continued on the assumption concurrent transmission is related to the first node.
Regarding claim 53: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 48, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 48.
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.
Claim(s) 48-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hessler et al. (US 2018/0035389 A1, made of record in the OA of 5/17/2024) hereinafter Hessler.
Regarding claim 48, Hessler teaches a first wireless node for wireless communication (intermediate node 2[a/b]; para. [15-16, 34-35, 40-41] and Figs. 1-5), comprising: a memory (memory 12; para. [15-16, 59-64] and Fig. 6); and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (processor 10; para. [15-16, 59-64] and Fig. 6), configured to cause the first wireless node to: receive signaling that includes information that identifies: a first power for a first link between the first wireless node and a second wireless node (intermediate node 2 receives signaling containing information field indicating used transmit power for node 3 [second node] from node 3 [first link]; para. [37, 39]), and a second power for a second link between the first wireless node and a third wireless node (intermediate node 2 receives signaling containing information field indicating used transmit power for node 1 [third node] from node 1 [second link]; para. 38-39); determine the first power and the second power based at least in part on the received signaling (intermediate node 2 receives [determines] signaling containing information field indicating used transmit power for node 3 and node 1 from node 3 and node 1; para. [37, 39]), wherein the first wireless node is downstream of the second wireless node (intermediate node 2 downstream of node 3; para. 34 and Fig. 1 showing node 3 between node 2 and core network (CN)); wherein the first wireless node is upstream of third wireless node (intermediate node 2 upstream of node 1; para. 34 and Fig. 1 showing intermediate node 2 between node 1 and node 3/BS/CN); and wherein the first power and the second power are configured to satisfy a maximum power criterion associated with the first wireless node (based on received power from node 3 [configured], node 2 configures receive power of node 1 to be within threshold [max] power spectral density [power criterion]; para. 35) for: reception of concurrent transmissions from the second wireless node and the third wireless node (node 2 receives simultaneous transmissions from node 3 and node 1 with similar power spectral density; para. [07, 15, 35, 41, 46], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), provision of concurrent transmissions, or concurrent transmission and reception; and provide information that identifies the first power and the second power (node 2 sends power control adjustments to node 3 [identifies first power] and node 1 [identifies second power]; para. 47).
Regarding claim 49, Hessler teaches the limitation of previous claim 48.
Hessler further teaches wherein the first power is a first transmit power for the first link (node 2 receives simultaneous transmissions from node 3 [first power] and node 1; para. [07, 15, 35, 41, 46]), and wherein the second power is a second transmit power for the second link (node 2 receives simultaneous transmissions from node 3 and node 1 [second power]; para. [07, 15, 35, 41, 46]).
Regarding claim 50, Hessler teaches the limitation of previous claim 48.
Hessler further teaches wherein the first power and the second power are configured for the reception of the concurrent transmissions from the second wireless node and the third wireless node (node 2 receives simultaneous transmissions from node 3 [first power] and node 1 [second power]; para. [07, 15, 35, 41, 46]).
Regarding claim 51, Hessler teaches the limitation of previous claim 48.
Hessler further teaches wherein the first power and the second power are configured for the provision of the concurrent transmissions (based on received power from node 3 [configured], node 2 configures receive power of node 1 to be within threshold for simultaneous transmission; para. [07, 15, 35, 41, 46]).
Regarding claim 52, Hessler teaches the limitation of previous claim 48.
Hessler further teaches wherein the first power and the second power are configured for concurrent transmission and reception (first node supports full duplex; para. 41 and Fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 53, Hessler teaches the limitation of previous claim 48.
Hessler further teaches wherein, to provide the information that identifies the first power and the second power (node 2 sends power control adjustments to node 3 [identifies first power] and node 1 [identifies second power]; para. 47), the one or more processors are configured to: provide the information that identifies the first power and the second power to the second wireless node (node 2 sends power control adjustments to node 3 [identifies first power] and node 1 [identifies second power]; para. 47, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or the third wireless node (node 2 sends power control adjustments to node 1 [identifies second power]; para. 47).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 8-10, 15, 19, 21-23, 28-29, 42-43, 30-31, 44, 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozluturk (US 2005/0277443 A1, made of record in the OA of 11/7/2023) hereinafter Ozluturk in view of Deng et al. (US 2013/0324182 A1, made of record in the OA of 11/7/2023) hereinafter Deng.
Regarding claim 2, Ozluturk teaches a first integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node for wireless communication (node 102 a / node 202 transmits backhaul; para. [32, 24-28] and Figs. 1-2), comprising: a memory (memory 208; para. 24-25 and Fig. 2); and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (controller 206 coupled to memory 208; para. 24-25 and Fig. 2), configured to cause the first IAB node to: receive, from a second IAB node, information related to a first power for a first link between the first IAB node and the second IAB node (node 102 a receives power / interference levels on beam/link A for beam/link A from node 102 b [second node] for signal configuration; para. [21-22, 30-31, 34-35] and Fig. 1); receive information related to a second power for a second link between the first IAB node and a third IAB node (node 102 a receives power / interference levels on beam/link C for beam/link C from node 102 n [third node] for signal configuration; para. [21-22, 30-31, 34-35] and Fig. 1), wherein the first IAB node is downstream of the second IAB node (node 102 b transmits to node 102 a via link A, to core network via node 102 n; para. 18 and Fig. 1), and wherein the first IAB node is upstream of the third IAB node (node 102 n transmits backhaul to node 102 a via link C, node 102 n connected to and receives backhaul from core network; para. 18 and Fig. 1).
While Ozluturk discloses transmitting power information and allocating radio resources, Ozluturk does not explicitly disclose provide, in a media access control (MAC) control element (CE) signal, information that identifies at least one of the first power or the second power.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches provide, in a media access control (MAC) control element (CE) signal, information that identifies at least one of the first power (reference signal received power (RSRP) used [information identifying first received power] to estimate path loss; para. 62, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or the second power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Deng to the system of Ozluturk, where Ozluturk’s adjustment based on environment and interference (para. 21, 24, 28, 35) along with Deng’s controlling power of links (para. 02-03 and para. 13 and para. 58) improves system capacity by optimizing performance.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ozluturk and Deng teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
While Ozluturk teaches transmitting current power levels as a parameter for adjustments, Ozluturk does not explicitly disclose wherein, to provide the information that identifies at least one of the first power or the second power, the one or more processors are configured to cause the first IAB node to: transmit an indicator of the first power.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deng further teaches wherein, to provide the information that identifies at least one of the first power or the second power, the one or more processors are configured to cause the first IAB node to: transmit an indicator of the first power (coordinating power control; para. 76, adjusting physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) power [an indicator to determine adjusted level]; para. 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Deng to the modified system of Ozluturk and Deng, where Ozluturk and Deng’s modified system along with Deng’s controlling power of links (para. 02-03 and para. 13 and para. 58) improves system capacity by optimizing performance.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ozluturk and Deng teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
While Ozluturk teaches centralized and decentralized control and adjustment based on environment and interference, Ozluturk does not explicitly disclose receive feedback information that identifies a request to associate one or more transmissions with an adjusted power; and determine subsequent transmission power based at least in part on the request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deng further teaches receive feedback information that identifies a request to associate one or more transmissions with an adjusted power (after power reallocation [feedback], UE reports power imbalance [request to adjust power]; para. 88); and determine subsequent transmission power based at least in part on the request (adjust transmit power to correct; para. 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Deng to the modified system of Ozluturk and Deng, where Ozluturk and Deng’s modified system along with Deng’s controlling power of links (para. 02-03 and para. 13 and para. 58) improves system capacity by optimizing performance.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ozluturk and Deng teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
While Ozluturk teaches transmitting current power levels as a parameter for adjustments, Ozluturk does not explicitly disclose wherein the first power is a first transmit power for the first link, and wherein the second power is a second transmit power for the second link.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deng further teaches wherein the first power is a first transmit power for the first link (Transmit Power Control (TPC) command received from eNB for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) / PUSCH; para. 60 and para. 63, uplink transmission from UE to eNB; para. 56 and para. 60 and para. 76), and wherein the second power is a second transmit power for the second link (link between UEs being cross link (XL); para. 56-57 and para. 66, XL maximum power control (XLMPC) / XL dynamic power control (XLDPC) determined at eNB and provided [to WTRU] by eNB; para. 98 and para. 101 and para. 105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Deng to the modified system of Ozluturk and Deng, where Ozluturk and Deng’s modified system along with Deng’s controlling power of links (para. 02-03 and para. 13 and para. 58) improves system capacity by optimizing performance.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ozluturk and Deng teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
While Ozluturk teaches transmitting power information, allocating radio resources, centralized and decentralized control, and adjustment based on environment and interference, Ozluturk does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a first receive power for the first link, a second receive power for the second link; wherein the first receive power is different from the first power, and wherein the second receive power is different from the second power; and provide information identifying at least one of the first receive power or the second receive power.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deng further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a first receive power for the first link (RSRP from reference cell [BS / first link]; para. 62), a second receive power for the second link (beacons within XL transmitted at specific level, detect beacon level; para. 126, XL reference signal transmitted at known level and measured; para. 127); wherein the first receive power is different from the first power (TPC command received from eNB for PUCCH / PUSCH; para. 60 and para. 63, uplink transmission from UE to eNB; para. 56 and para. 60 and para. 76 [receive power inherently different from transmit power]), and wherein the second receive power is different from the second power (link between UEs being XL; para. 56-57 and para. 66, XLMPC / XLDPC determined at eNB and provided (to WTRU) by eNB; para. 98 and para. 101 and para. 105 (receive power inherently different from transmit power)); and provide information identifying at least one of the first receive power (RSRP used [information identifying first received power] to estimate path loss; para. 62, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or the second receive power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Deng to the modified system of Ozluturk and Deng, where Ozluturk and Deng’s modified system along with Deng’s controlling power of links (para. 02-03 and para. 13 and para. 58) improves system capacity by optimizing performance.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (hardware / software in computer-readable medium executed by processor; para. [34, 167]: Deng).
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 42, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 43, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2, including means for receiving (smart antenna controlled by controller for receiving; para. [18, 21, 25]: Ozluturk), means for providing (smart antenna controlled by controller for transmitting; para. [18, 21, 25]: Ozluturk).
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 44, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 46, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 47, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Claim(s) 13-14, 26-27, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozluturk in view Deng, and further in view of Hessler.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ozluturk and Deng teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
While the combination of Ozluturk and Deng discloses simultaneous transmission and adjustments based on interference and maximum transmit power, the combination of Ozluturk and Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the first power or the second power is selected for the first wireless node to receive the concurrent transmissions without inter-link interference or without exceeding a maximum transmit power criterion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hessler teaches wherein one or more of the first power or the second power is selected for the first wireless node to receive the concurrent transmissions (intermediate node receives transmission from slave node at particular power, intermediate node receives simultaneous transmission from master node and slave node after power control by intermediate node; para. 46 and Fig. 4) without inter-link interference or without exceeding a maximum transmit power criterion (power control constrained by maximum transmit power; para. 43-44 and para. 49-51, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Hessler to the modified system of Ozluturk and Deng, where Ozluturk and Deng’s modified system along with Hessler’s power control in wireless multi-hop network (para. 04-06 and para. 31-33) improves latency by optimizing use of Transmission Time Interval (TTI).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ozluturk and Deng teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
While the combination of Ozluturk and Deng discloses transmitting power information and allocating radio resources, transmitting current power levels as a parameter for adjustments, and centralized and decentralized control and adjustment based on environment and interference the combination of Ozluturk and Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to provide the information that identifies at least one of the first power or the second power, are configured to cause the first wireless node to: provide the information that identifies at least one of the first power or the second power to one or more of the second wireless node or the third wireless node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hessler teaches wherein the one or more processors, to provide the information that identifies at least one of the first power or the second power, are configured to cause the first wireless node to: provide the information that identifies at least one of the first power or the second power to one or more of the second wireless node (intermediate node transmits power control information [identifying first power] to slave node; para. 46 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or the third wireless node (intermediate node transmits power control information [identifying second power] to master node; para. 46 and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Hessler to the modified system of Ozluturk and Deng, where Ozluturk and Deng’s modified system along with Hessler’s power control in wireless multi-hop network (para. 04-06 and para. 31-33) improves latency by optimizing use of Transmission Time Interval (TTI).
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng et al. (WO 2015/027389 A1) discloses backhaul signaling for interference mitigation and traffic adaptation.
Damnjanovic et al. (US 2009/0264077 A1) discloses methods and apparatus for uplink and downlink inter-cell interference coordination.
Boudreau et al. (US 2014/0099881 A1) discloses mitigation of interference from a mobile relay node to heterogeneous networks.
Nagata et al. (US 2013/0094433 A1) discloses a radio relay station apparatus and mobile terminal apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474