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 Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s reply, filed on 09/17/2025, to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/02/2025.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-24 are pending and addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims (dependent claims) 6,13 and 20 are objected to because the features of the claims are disclosed in such a way (long paragraph) that the limitations are not easily understood. Applicant is advised to rewrite the claims, in light of the USC 112(b) rejections below.
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, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-24 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.
Claim 1, line 2 recites “receiving, by a base station, a first uplink signal from a terminal using a first beam;”, and lines 4-5 “… the first uplink signal that is received by the relay node from the terminal by using the first beam …” is not understood. From the first statement, first beam is associated with the base station. However, second statement recites that the first beam is associated with the relay node. Therefore, claim is indefinite due to the contradictory limitations.
Claim 1, lines 6-10, limitation “determining, by the base station, a first uplink signal quality from the second uplink signal, wherein the first uplink signal quality comprises information about a signal quality for data communication between the terminal and the base station, wherein the data communication between the terminal and the base station is performed through the relay node;” is not understood. “First uplink signal quality” is determined from the second uplink signal comprising the first uplink signal from the terminal to the relay node (see the limitation above this limitation), therefore, it implies that “First uplink signal quality” is about signal quality for data communication between the terminal and the relay node, not, as claimed, for data communication between the terminal and the base station. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1, line 5 “an identifier added by the relay node”, and lines 25-26, limitation “adding, by the base station, a first identifier to the first downlink signal when the third uplink signal quality is greater than a first threshold” lacks clarity as it is not clear about the object that the identifier represents or refers to, or the significance of the identifier.
Claim 1, lines 27-30, limitation “wherein when the first uplink signal quality is greater than the second uplink signal quality, the uplink beam configuration of the relay node comprises an identifier corresponding to the first beam, to indicate to the relay node to receive the uplink signal by using the first beam.”, lacks clarity, as it is explained earlier in the first rejection above that the first beam is ambiguously defined in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a first uplink signal” in lines 2 and 14. It is not clear if these are the same signals or different signals.
Claim 8 is subject to the same rejections above.
Claim 15, limitation “determining a first downlink signal quality from the second downlink signal, wherein the first downlink signal quality comprises information about a signal quality for data communication between the terminal and the base station, wherein the data communication between the terminal and the base station is performed through the relay node; is not understood. “First downlink signal quality” is determined from the second downlink signal comprising the first downlink signal from the base station to the relay node (see the limitation above this limitation), therefore, it implies that “First downlink signal quality” is about signal quality for data communication between the relay node and the base station, not, as claimed, for data communication between the terminal and the base station. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 15, line 11 “an identifier added by the relay node”, and lines 30-31, limitation “adding a first identifier to the third uplink signal if the third downlink signal quality is greater than a second threshold” lacks clarity as it is not clear about the object that the identifier represents or refers to, or the significance of the identifier.
Claim 15 recites “a first downlink signal” in lines 8 and 19-20. It is not clear if these are the same signals or different signals.
Claim 15 lines 10-11 recites “the first downlink signal that is received by the relay node from the base station by using a second beam”, and lines 27-28 “determining … from a third downlink signal … , and the third downlink signal is received from the base station by using the second beam;” is not understood. From the first statement, second beam is associated with the relay node. However, second statement recites that the second beam is associated with the terminal. Therefore, claim is indefinite due to the contradictory limitations.
Dependent claims of the rejected claims are subjected to the same rejection.
Examiner’s Note
The applicant is advised to review amendments thoroughly to discover any further potential indefinite issues. For accurate prior art search and analysis, Applicant needs to address all major indefinite issues identified above with the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the claims lack clarity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights