DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 12/15/2025.
2. Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, 9 – 19 and 21 - 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1, 9 – 15 and 17 - 19 have been amended.
4. Claims 4, 6, 8 and 20 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The arguments/remarks presented by the applicant/applicant’s representative on 12/15/2025 along with the amendments made to the independent claims were thoroughly reviewed resulting in the scope of the independent claims being changed. A further search and reconsideration were conducted, see new claim rejection presented below.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 - 3, 5, 7, 9 - 19, 21 and 22 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2022/0361076 A1) in view of Cai et al. (US 2011/0081903 A1) and Moon et al. (US 2024/0429994 A1).
The applicant’s figure 9 is replicated below
PNG
media_image1.png
438
1202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The back haul is the connection between the base station and repeater as seen above. The backhaul routes data from the gNB to the repeater which is then forwarded to the UE. The control link is a connection between the base station and repeater that provides control inforamtion to the repeater. In the primary reference used in the rejection below Cheng et al. (US 2022/0361076) figure 1 is replicated below
PNG
media_image2.png
190
537
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The UU link connects the gNB to the relay 103, the UU link is equivalent to the backhaul of figure 9 of this application. In other words, since the UU link in Cheng routes traffic form the gNB to the relay node which forwards it to the respective UE it performs the same task as the backhaul link. The independent claims use both the UU and backhaul link for different purposes, however, the way the figures and description of this application specification is drafted the above equivalence between the two diagrams is reasonable to assume, since, the most important connection of importance in the claims is between the gNB and relay UE for the purpose of data/traffic transmission.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses: An apparatus for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising:
at least one transceiver; [see figure 2, label 201, (relay UE = ¶ 0024)]
one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions [[and]]to cause the apparatus to: [See figure 2: relay 201 possesses a processor (203), memory (202) and program (210)]
modify a forwarding behavior based on a change in channel condition of the backhaul communications link between the apparatus and the network entity, wherein the apparatus modifies the forwarding behavior [¶ 0039, the UE 501 that is in communication with a base station (network entity, UU interface = backhaul) will measure its radio signal quality (channel condition) between itself and a base station (UU interface = backhaul) to see changes in channel quality that is being compared to a threshold, and in doing the comparison will dictate if the UE is to operate as a normal UE (not forwarding traffic) or a relay UE (forwarding of traffic to other UEs). If it becomes a relay UE it will modify its operation by relaying traffic via PC5 interface to other UEs]
by at least one of:
switching, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, from obtaining receiving a signal and processing the obtained received signal to outputting, for transmission, transmitting a reproduction of the obtained received signal;
switching, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, from obtaining receiving a signal and outputting, for transmission, transmitting a reproduction of the obtained received signal to obtaining receiving a signal and processing the obtained received signal;
switching, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, from outputting, for transmission, transmitting reproductions of obtained received reference signals (RS) to generating RS and outputting, for transmission, transmitting the generated RS;
switching, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, from generating RS and outputting for transmission transmitting the generated RS to obtaining receiving RS and outputting, for transmission, transmitting reproductions of the obtained received RS;
switching, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, to an autonomous mode of operation;
switching, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, from the autonomous mode of operation;
adjusting, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, a receive timing reference;
adjusting, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, a forwarding timing reference;
switching, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, to digitally processing incoming signals;
switching, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, from digitally processing incoming signals;
activating, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, forwarding; [¶ 0039, as explained above, the UE can measure the quality of the UU link = backhaul, that is, the link between the base station (network entity) and UE, if the UE becomes a relay UE then it will activate forwarding to other UEs].
modifying, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, a beam-specific amplification gain;
modifying, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, an access beam configuration; or
modifying, based on the change in the channel condition of the backhaul communication link between the apparatus and the network entity, an access beam sweep pattern; and
forward, via the at least one transceiver, one or more communications between the network entity and a user equipment (UE) in accordance with the modified forwarding behavior. [¶ 0039, forwarding is done if the UE is a relay UE, that forwarding of traffic from the base station (network entity) to another UE]
Cheng does not explicitly disclose the term “backhaul” but uses the equivalent idea the UU operates as the backhaul in view of the relay node changing its forwarding behavior based on the backhaul channel condition. To account for such difference as the term “backhaul” is seen in the reference of Cai, see ¶ 0132: “…Once the backhaul link quality is back to normal and stable or the cell loading is below certain threshold, the relay node could reset the cell status to unbarred. The relay node could inform the neighboring cells generated by a RN or an eNB about the RN barring/unbarring status.”, barring and unbarring at the relay node is interpreted as modifying its forwarding behavior in view of the condition of the backhaul.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng’s system in view of the teaching of Cai. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to adjust the load in the system by determining inadequate backhaul link quality [¶ 0132 of Cai].
Neither Cheng or Cai discloses explicitly: receive, via the at least one transceiver, control information from a network entity via a Uu-based control link between the apparatus and the network entity; It should be noted the above underlined limitation has no relevance to the claim, in other words receiving control inforamtion over the UU interface was never further used in the claim. However, such difference is seen in the reference of Moon: see the last sentence in ¶ 0145, the indication information is control information that is sent via the UU link (control link). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng’s system in view of the teaching of Cai and Moon. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for the base station to transmit information instructing the relay node to perform or resume the signal transmission operation with the terminal to the relay node. [¶ 0145 of Moon].
Independent Claim 14 is slightly different and requires the eNB to send a configuration to the relay node to check for change in channel conditions against thresholds in order to activate forwarding, this is seen in, paragraphs 0031 - paragraph 0032; ¶ 0037, ¶ 0041 of Cheng.
Claim 22 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Moon further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to detect the change based on a condition involving at least one of: a reference signal measurement; or a power measurement within a bandwidth. [¶ 0175 and ¶0176, the beam failure is detected by the relay when the RSRP is below a reference value. See also ¶ 0039 of Cheng].
Regarding claim 3, Moon further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to apparatus to detect the change based on at least one of: activation of a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state for a mobile termination (MT) of the apparatus; or a change of a beam of a backhaul link for the apparatus. [¶ 0175, the quality of the back haul link deteriorates (a change in the beam quality) is detected by the relay. See also ¶ 0031 and 0039 of Cheng].
Claim 5, Moon further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus modifies the forwarding behavior by modifying the forwarding behavior for downlink communications from the network entity independent of the forwarding behavior for uplink communications to the network entity. [¶ 00161, the access link is the communication between the relay and UE that is independently configured and in ¶ 0173 the back haul link is the link between the relay node and base station. These links are independently configured for forwarding in the UL and DL direction. See also Cheng’s paragraph 0031 and 0039].
Claim 7, Moon further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more communications comprise (RS) [¶ 0134, the generation of RS. See also Cheng’s paragraph 0031 and 0039].
Claim 9, Cheng, Moon and Cai disclose: The apparatus of claim wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: (see rejected claim 1)
Cheng, Moon and Cai further disclose: receive via the at least one transceiver, a configuration from the network entity; and at least one of: detect the change based on the configuration; activate the modification of the forwarding behavior in response to receiving the configuration; or modify the forwarding behavior further based on the configuration. [Moon: ¶ 0169 deals with configuration that is sent from the base station to the UE, the configuration of the base station to determine the failure (change in channel condition) Is seen in ¶ 0176: “…signal(s) explicitly configured by the base station, which are equivalent thereto, may be referred to as a first signal set. When a beam quality (e.g., RSRP, L1-RSRP, hypothetical PDCCH BLER, etc.) of all signal(s) belonging to the first signal set (or a first signal set corresponding to a specific TRP) is less than or equal to a first reference value, the relay node may determine a beam failure.”, hence further configuring a new beam candidate from the base station to the relay node (see also ¶ 0039 - ¶ 0040 of Cheng); Cai discloses modifying the forwarding behavior see ¶ 0132: “…Once the backhaul link quality is back to normal and stable or the cell loading is below certain threshold, the relay node could reset the cell status to unbarred. The relay node could inform the neighboring cells generated by a RN or an eNB about the RN barring/unbarring status.”, barring and unbarring at the relay node is interpreted as modifying its forwarding behavior in view of the condition of the backhaul. See also Cheng’s paragraph 0031 and 0039].
Claim 15 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 9.
Claim 10, Cheng, Moon and Cai disclose: The apparatus of claim 1 (see rejected claim 1), further disclose: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to:
Cheng, Moon and Cai further disclose: receive, via the at least one transceiver, a forwarding configuration that comprises a mapping between modifications to the forwarding behavior and sets of channel conditions, wherein the modification of the forwarding behavior is in accordance with the mapping; and detect the change based on at least one of the sets of channel conditions. [Moon: ¶ 0169 deals with configuration that is sent from the base station to the UE, the configuration of the base station to determine the failure (change in channel condition) Is seen in ¶ 0176: “…signal(s) explicitly configured by the base station, which are equivalent thereto, may be referred to as a first signal set. When a beam quality (e.g., RSRP, L1-RSRP, hypothetical PDCCH BLER, etc.) of all signal(s) belonging to the first signal set (or a first signal set corresponding to a specific TRP) is less than or equal to a first reference value, the relay node may determine a beam failure.” hence further configuring a new beam candidate from the base station to the relay node (see also ¶ 0039 -¶ 0040 of Cheng); Cai discloses modifying the forwarding behavior see ¶ 0132: “…Once the backhaul link quality is back to normal and stable or the cell loading is below certain threshold, the relay node could reset the cell status to unbarred. The relay node could inform the neighboring cells generated by a RN or an eNB about the RN barring/unbarring status.”, barring and unbarring at the relay node is interpreted as modifying its forwarding behavior in view of the condition of the backhaul. See also Cheng’s paragraph 0031 and 0039].
Claim 16 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 10.
Claim 11, Moon further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors being configured to cause the apparatus to modify the forwarding behavior comprises the one or more processors being configured to cause the apparatus to :
notify, via the at least one transceiver, the network entity of the change;
receive, via the at least one transceiver, a forwarding configuration from the network entity based on the change; and
modify the forwarding behavior in accordance with the received forwarding configuration. [¶ 0177 the relay node will report information in case of beam failure occurring, hence prompting a modification of the forwarding behavior, that is, selecting a new candidate beam; ¶ 0175 in view of ¶ 0174: a beam failure (change in channel condition such as a deterioration) is detected by the relay node and a recovery is performed at the relay node, this recovery is seen in the latter part of ¶ 0176, in which the relay node makes measurements in order to obtain a better-quality beam for communication. The primary reference continues by allowing the smart relay to apply the better-quality beam between the backhaul and UE. See also Cheng’s paragraphs 0031 and 0039. See also Cai ¶ 0132].
Claim 17 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 11.
Claim 12, Moon further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: notify, via the at least one transceiver the network entity of the modification of the forwarding behavior. [¶ 0177 the relay node will report beam information to the base station in case of beam failure occurring, hence prompting a modification of the forwarding behavior, that is selecting a new candidate beam. See Cai ¶ 0132: “…The relay node could inform the neighboring cells generated by a RN or an eNB about the RN barring/unbarring status…”].
Claim 18 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 12.
Claim 13, Moon further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus forward the one or more communications by:
receiving, via the at least one transceiver the one or more communications in accordance with the modified forwarding behavior; and
transmitting via the at least one transceiver for transmission, reproductions of the one or more communications in accordance with the modified forwarding behavior. [see figures 5/6 (repetition between the relay and UE and relay and base station) in view of ¶ 0177: the relay node will report information in case of beam failure occurring, hence prompting a modification of the forwarding behavior, that is selecting a new candidate beam for the reproduction of signal using the new forwarding behavior. See ¶ 0132 of Cai: ¶ 0132].
Claim 19, Cheng, Cai Moon further discloses: The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the apparatus is configured as a network entity. [see ¶ 0048 of Cai and ¶ 0093 and ¶ 0169 of Moon, the relay node acts as part of the network and can be refer to as the network entity].
Claim 21, Moon and Cai further disclose: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured as a repeater. [see ¶ 0048 of Cai and ¶ 0093 and ¶ 0169 of Moon].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463