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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 48:
48A) Applicant’s arguments on page 17 include “Applicant amends claims 48-53 to address the Examiner's concerns. Thus, claims 48-53 are definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding 48A) Amendments to parent independent claim 48 include new issues assumed to be inadvertent idiomatic issues regarding “sharing” as opposed to enablement / written description issues, with “wherein the first power and the second power are configured to share portions of an available power that is less than a maximum transmit power criterion associated with the first wireless node for: reception of concurrent transmissions from the second wireless node and the third wireless node, provision of concurrent transmissions, or concurrent transmission and reception” in lines 13-20. While “for provision of concurrent transmissions” may be understood as the example in para. 108 of the specification and “for reception of concurrent transmissions from the second wireless node and the third wireless node” may be broadly understood as examples in para. 110-113 of the specification, it is unclear how “for concurrent transmission and reception” is performed as how transmission power of the first wireless node is shared or related to reception power of the first wireless node or shared or related to transmission power of the second/third wireless node. The specification is also silent with regards to “sharing” available power associated with the first wireless link when the first wireless node is both transmitting and receiving.
48B) Applicant’s arguments on pages 17-18 include “configuring received powers to be "similar, preferably within thresholds," as described in HESSLER [US 2018/0035389 A1], cannot be relied upon to disclose "the first power and the second power are configured to share portions of an available power that is less than a maximum transmit power criterion," as recited in amended claim 48”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding 48B) Amendments to parent independent claim 48 include new indefinite issues as outlined above in A) and thus, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
Regarding claim 2: Applicant’s arguments on pages 18-20 includes “receiving "a nominal or desired power level," as disclosed in DENG [US 2013/0324182 A1], cannot be relied upon to 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 for concurrent communications via the first link and the second link,"”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Deng explicitly discloses simultaneous transmissions (concurrent communication), in the abstract, summary, and detailed description (para. [03, 80, 83, 88, 94]), and discloses cross link (described as simultaneous transmission in para. [02-03, 13, 77]) and thus, discloses “concurrent communications via the first link and the second link”, and para. 97 (first cited in the OA of 11/22/2024) describes power level grants carried in MAC CE. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
Arguments regarding remaining claims are based on the above and thus, are correspondingly non-persuasive.
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: claim language in lines 13-20 includes “wherein the first power and the second power are configured to share portions of an available power that is less than a maximum transmit power criterion associated with the first wireless node for: reception of concurrent transmissions from the second wireless node and the third wireless node, provision of concurrent transmissions, or concurrent transmission and reception”. While “for provision of concurrent transmissions” may be understood as the example in para. 108 of the specification and “for reception of concurrent transmissions from the second wireless node and the third wireless node” may be broadly understood as examples in para. 110-113 of the specification, it is unclear how “for concurrent transmission and reception” is performed as how transmission power of the first wireless node is shared or related to reception power of the first wireless node or transmission power of the second/third wireless node. The specification is also silent with regards to “sharing” available power associated with the first wireless link when the first wireless node is both transmitting and receiving (a transmission). Examination continued on the assumption amendments include inadvertent idiomatic issues regarding “sharing” as opposed to enablement / written description issues, and “sharing” is related to power availability during concurrent transmission by the first wireless node (where Hessler et al. (US 2018/0035389 A1) discloses adjusting transmit power of second [a particular] node based on transmit power of third [another] node in para. 47), and/or “sharing” is related to limiting transmission power for concurrent transmissions received by the first wireless device, and/or “sharing” is generally related power for concurrent transmission and reception.
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.
The examiner respectfully recommends amendments to clearly and explicitly elucidate functions performed and tie the functions to the entities performing the functions and the resulting values/steps/etc. of the functions (e.g. for example - wherein the first power and the second power are configured to: I) [e.g. - be in combination less than a maximum power/limit] during concurrent reception by the first wireless node or concurrent transmissions from the second wireless node and third wireless node; II) [e.g. - be in total a combined power less than a maximum power/limit] during concurrent transmission by the first wireless node; and III) [e.g. - indicate a transmission power of the first wireless node and a reception power of the first wireless node] during concurrent transmission and reception by the first wireless node.
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).
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), 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 the 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 share portions of an available power that is less than a maximum transmit power criterion associated with the first wireless node (based on received power from node 3 [configured / share], node 2 configures receive power of node 1 to be within threshold [max] power spectral density [power criterion]; para. 35, adjust transmit power of second [a particular] node based on transmit power of third [another] node; para. 47) 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, 54], [15, 19, 21-23, 55], [28-29, 42-43, 56], [30-31, 44, 46-47, 57] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozluturk (US 2005/0277443 A1) hereinafter Ozluturk in view of Deng et al. (US 2013/0324182 A1) 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 and simultaneous transmission, 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 for concurrent communications via the first link and the second link.
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 or the second power for concurrent communications via the first link and the second link (semi-static power level grant for cross link (XL) [simultaneous] in MAC CE; para. [95, 97-98], simultaneous transmission in para. [02-03, 13, 77], 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 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, 13, 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, semi-static power level grant for XL; para. [95, 97-98]).
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, 13, 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 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, 13, 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, 63], uplink transmission from UE to eNB; para. [56, 60, 76]), and wherein the second power is a second transmit power for the second link (link between UEs being XL; para. [56-57, 66], XL maximum power control (XLMPC) / XL dynamic power control (XLDPC) determined at eNB and provided [to WTRU] by eNB; para. [98, 101, 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 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, 13, 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, 63], uplink transmission from UE to eNB; para. [56, 60, 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, 66], XLMPC / XLDPC determined at eNB and provided (to WTRU) by eNB; para. [98, 101, 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 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, 13, 58]) improves system capacity by optimizing performance.
Regarding claim 54, 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 the second power is a second transmit power for the second link, the first power is a first receive power for the first link and the second power is a second receive power for the second link, the first power is the first transmit power for the first link and the second power is the second receive power for the second link, or the first power is the first receive power for the first link and the second power is the 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 (for simultaneous transmission, first link assigned power level [transmission by first node]; para. [61, 80]) and the second power is a second transmit power for the second link (for simultaneous transmission, first link assigned power level and remaining power distributed to second link [transmission by first node]; para. [61, 80]), the first power is a first receive power for the first link and the second power is a second receive power for the second link, the first power is the first transmit power for the first link and the second power is the second receive power for the second link, or the first power is the first receive power for the first link and the second power is the second transmit power for the second link.
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, 13, 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 55, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 54.
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 56, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 54.
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.
Regarding claim 57, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 54.
Claim(s) 13-14, 26-27, and 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, 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, 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, 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.
Tavildar et al. (US 9,049,668 B2) discloses D2D relays as an underlay in LTE uplink.
Uchiyama et al. (US 2016/0249302 A1) discloses a radio communication apparatus, communication control apparatus, radio communication method and communication control method.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights