DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 03/11/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18-22, and 24 were amended, claims 5, 11, 17, and 23 were cancelled, and claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18-22, and 24 remain pending. Based on the changes made in this amendment, the objection to claim 13 and the rejections of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On page 11 of their remarks, the Applicant argues that “You merely presents a general concept that resource coordination between IAB nodes should be supported at the RRC signaling time scale. However, You does not disclose a structure in which a specific list of slots is configured and a timing mode is applied to each slot in the list” (Applicant Remarks, 11).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. In the Examiner’s view, You’s description of “coordination of resources” such as “time in terms of slot” (You, 0286) renders obvious the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “timing mode” (the “resource coordination” in You) for “a list of slots” (which could be a single slot). In other words, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not strictly require “a specific list of slots” that is “configured” with a “timing mode” for “each slot in the list”; rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation only requires configuring timing for a single slot.
The Applicant then argues on page 11 that “case 1 to case 6 described in You merely define system-level timing alignment scenarios between IAB nodes and are unrelated to a MAC CE structure for indicating a timing mode on a slot basis” (Remarks, p. 11)
The Examiner agrees that the specifics of “case 1 to case 6 described in You” differ from the claimed timing modes in the latest amendment. However, Bi, not You, is the reference cited to address these new dependent claim limitations. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the rejection of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper.
Next, the Applicant claims on page 11 that “the MAC CE mentioned in You is intended for configuring a default TA or a dedicated TA, which merely corresponds to selecting which TA is to be used, and is therefore entirely different from the structure of Claim 1 that indicates a timing mode for a specific slot” (Remarks, p. 11)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that this differentiates from You because configuring a “timing advance” falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “timing mode”, so this feature in You renders the contested claim limitation obvious. Thus, the rejection based on U.S.C. 103 is proper.
In a final argument against You, the Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that “Claim 1 defines a field for indicating the timing mode has a length of 2 bits, which provides a structural feature clearly distinguishable from the MAC CE of You that merely selects between a default TA and a dedicated TA” (Remarks, p. 11-12).
The Examiner agrees that You does not teach this feature; hence, Lee was moved up to address this limitation in the new rejection. Again, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Thus, the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper.
Next, on page 12 of their remarks, the Applicant disputes the relevance of Liu2 to the claimed invention, arguing that Liu2 “merely discloses a general structure for delivering a power adjustment parameter for DL transmit power adjustment, and does not disclose a MAC CE structure in which power adjustment is applied on a per-slot basis to specific slots in a slot list configured via RRC” (Remarks, p. 12).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and does not believe this to be an accurate summary of Liu2. Liu teaches that the “power adjustment parameter” carried in a MAC CE “becomes applicable from N time unit(s) after the target moment” (Liu2, 0148), and then elaborates that “the target moment may be a current (sub-) slot” (Liu2, 0150). This renders obvious “power adjustment on a per-slot basis”, which is the limitation Liu2 is cited to address, meaning a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper here.
The Applicant concludes by asserting that “None of You to Liu ‘972 [Liu2] disclose or suggest the inter-layer cooperation of claim 1 in which i) a slot list is configured by an RRC message, and according to slots in the configured list, ii) a timing mode is indicated by a first MAC CE and iii) power adjustment information is indicated by a second MAC CE” (Remarks, p. 12).
However, the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action is based on 35 U.S.C. 103, not 35 U.S.C. 102. Thus, the relevant standard is not anticipation based on one reference, but obviousness based on the combination of You and Liu2 together. You describes “(i) a slot list is configured by an RRC message” and “(ii) a timing mode is indicated by a first MAC CE”, while Liu2 describes “(iii) power adjustment information is indicated by a second MAC CE”. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine these references because You discusses power adjustment several times (e.g. You 0126, 0170-0175) and only lacks an explicit teaching of configuring power via a MAC CE, a deficiency which Liu2 remedies. Thus, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the combination of You and Liu2 is proper.
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.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they recite “[a] second node in a wireless communication system” and “[a] method performed by a second node in a wireless communication system”, respectively, but then recite a limitation that requires “receiving, from the second node”, which does not make sense from the perspective of the second network node. It is unclear how the second node can receive from itself, meaning these claims are indefinite and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 8-10, 12, 20-22, and 24 are similarly rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend on an indefinite claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7 and 19 are interpreted as if the clause which reads “receiving, from the second node” was intended to mean “sending, to the first node” because these claims are written from the perspective of the second node.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected for indefiniteness, as explained above, but would be similarly allowable if rewritten in independent form with the indefiniteness of their parent claim resolved.
The prior art does not teach “a number of slots in the list of slots is less than a length of the periodicity of the list of slots” in combination with the other limitations of these claims. Liu et al. (US 2022/0400467 A1, previously cited as “Liu1”) does describe a scenario where a transmission has a periodicity greater than one slot, but Liu1 does not teach any of the other limitations of these claims that would allow for a succinct combination of references that a skilled artisan would find obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 12-13, 18-19, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2024/0031961 A1, hereinafter “You”) in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0016972 A1, hereinafter “Liu2”) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0072973 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
As to Claims 1 and 13:
You teaches:
A first node in a wireless communication system, the first node comprising: a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured
In You, “Fig. 35 illustrates a wireless device that is applicable to the disclosure” (You, 0431).
Here, “Second Device” 200 maps to “a first node in a wireless communication system”,
“Transceiver(s)” 206 maps to “a transceiver”, and
“Processor(s)” 202 map to “at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured”.
Receive, from a second node, a radio resource control (RRC) message including a list of slots to which information on a timing mode indicated in a first medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) applies
You states that “[t]he coordination of resources (frequency, time in terms of slot/slot format, etc.) between semi-static IAB nodes (on the time scale of RRC signaling) should be supported ... The default TA and the dedicated TA may be independently configured through, for example, a MAC medium access control control element (MAC CE)” (You, 0286, 0373).
Here, “RRC signaling” maps to “receive ... a radio resource control (RRC) message”,
one of the “semi-static IAB nodes” maps to “a second node”,
“slot/slot format” maps to “a list of slots” because a single slot falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a list of slots”, and
“coordination” that is “configured through ... a MAC medium access control control element (MAC CE)” corresponds to “information on a timing mode indicated in a first medium access control (MAC) control element (CE)”.
Receive, from the second node, the first MAC CE including the information on the timing mode to be applied to a slot in the list of slots
“The coordination of resources (frequency, time in terms of slot/slot format, etc.) between semi-static IAB nodes (on the time scale of RRC signaling) should be supported ... The default TA and the dedicated TA may be independently configured through, for example, a MAC medium access control control element (MAC CE)” (You, 0286, 0373).
Here, “coordination” that is “configured through, for example, a MAC medium access control control element (MAC CE)” maps to “receive ... the first MAC CE”,
one of the “IAB nodes” maps to “the second node”,
“the default TA and the dedicated TA” maps to “the information on the timing mode to be applied”, and
“slot/slot format” maps to “a slot in the list of slots”.
Based on the first MAC CE apply the information on the timing mode to the slot in the list of slots
“The coordination of resources (frequency, time in terms of slot/slot format, etc.) between semi-static IAB nodes (on the time scale of RRC signaling) should be supported ... The following transmission timing alignment case across IAB nodes and IAB donors is discussed. Case 1: Alignment of DL transmission timings across IAB nodes and IAB donors ... Case 5: Case 4 for backhaul link timing and Case 1 for access link timing for one IAB node in different time slots.... The default TA and the dedicated TA may be independently configured through, for example, a MAC medium access control element (MAC CE)” (You, 0286, 0299, 0304, 0373).
Here, “configured through ... a MAC medium access control element” maps to “based on the first MAC CE”,
“transmission timing alignment case” maps to “apply the information on the timing mode”, and
“slot/slot format” maps to “to the slot in the list of slots”.
You does not explicitly disclose:
Receive, from the second node, the second MAC CE including the information on the DL Tx power adjustment
Based on the second MAC CE, apply the information on the DL Tx power adjustment to slots in the list of slots
However, Liu2 does describe a method for adjusting transmit power at an integrated access and backhaul node.
Specifically, Liu2 teaches:
Receive, from the second node, the second MAC CE including the information on the DL Tx power adjustment
Liu2 states that “a target domain in the DCI or the MAC CE is used for triggering reporting the power adjustment parameter” (Liu2, 0111) and that “the reporting carrier of the power adjustment parameter may be at least one of the following: ... a MAC CE” (Liu2, 0100).
Here, a “MAC CE” that is the “reporting carrier of the power adjustment” corresponds to “receiv[ing], from the second node, the second MAC CE including the information on the DL Tx power adjustment”.
Based on the second MAC CE, apply the information on the DL Tx power adjustment to slots in the list of slots
Liu2 describes a “MAC CE” that is “the reporting carrier of the power adjustment parameter, later adding that “the power adjustment parameter becomes applicable from N time unit(s) after the target moment” and that “the target moment may be a current (sub-) slot or a symbol” (Liu2, 0100, 0148, 0150).
Here, the “MAC CE” corresponds to the “second MAC CE”,
“becomes applicable” maps to “apply”,
“the power adjustment parameter” corresponds to “the information on the DL Tx power adjustment”, and
“a current (sub-) slot” maps to “slots in the list of slots”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the MAC CEs for requesting power adjustments and the subsequent MAC CE responses, as described in Liu2, into You’s method for configuring backhaul nodes. Power adjustment is useful for backhaul nodes, as it is for all nodes, so it would be obvious to incorporate some form of power adjustment into You’s method.
The combination of You and Liu2 also does not explicitly disclose:
A length of a field in the first MAC CE for indicating the timing mode is 2 bits
The combination of You and Liu2 also does not explicitly disclose:
A length of a field ... for indicating the information on the timing mode is 2 bits
However, Lee does describe a method for configuring uplink transmission parameters.
Specifically, Lee teaches:
A length of a field for indicating the at least one timing mode is 2 bits
“In a case that dl-DataToUL-ACK is a list of three or four timings, the HARQ indicator field is 2 bits” (Lee, 0268).
Here, “the HARQ indicator field is 2 bits” maps to “a length of a field ... is 2 bits”, and
“three or four timings” map to “the at least one timing mode”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the 2-bit field described in Lee into You’s method for configuring the timing of backhaul links. If there are three or four options for timing configuration, a 2-bit field is an obvious choice to concisely encompass the possible choices.
Claim 13 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 1 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 6 and 18:
You does not explicitly disclose:
Transmit, to the second node, a third MAC CE including information on a desired DL Tx power adjustment for the slots in the list of slots
However, Liu2 teach:
Transmit, to the second node, a third MAC CE including information on a desired DL Tx power adjustment for the slots in the list of slots
Liu2 describes a “MAC CE” that is “the reporting carrier of the power adjustment parameter, later adding that “the power adjustment parameter becomes applicable from N time unit(s) after the target moment” and that “the target moment may be a current (sub-) slot or a symbol” (Liu2, 0100, 0148, 0150).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the MAC CEs for requesting power adjustments and the subsequent MAC CE responses, as described in Liu2, into You’s method for configuring backhaul nodes. Power adjustment is useful for backhaul nodes, as it is for all nodes, so it would be obvious to incorporate some form of power adjustment into You’s method.
Claim 18 describes the same subject matter as claim 6 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 7 and 19 (as best understood):
You teaches:
A second node in a wireless communication system, the second node comprising: a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured
In You, “Fig. 35 illustrates a wireless device that is applicable to the disclosure” (You, 0431).
Here, “First Device” 100 maps to “a second node in a wireless communication system”,
“Transceiver(s)” 106 maps to “a transceiver”, and
“Processor(s)” 102 map to “at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured”.
Transmit, to a first node, a radio resource control (RRC) message including a list of slots to which information on a timing mode indicated in a first medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) applies
You teaches that “[t]he coordination of resources (frequency, time in terms of slot/slot format, etc.) between semi-static IAB nodes (on the time scale of RRC signaling) should be supported ... The default TA and the dedicated TA may be independently configured through, for example, a MAC medium access control control element (MAC CE)” (You, 0286, 0373).
Here, “RRC signaling” maps to “transmit ... a radio resource control (RRC) message”,
one of the “semi-static IAB nodes” maps to “a first node”,
“slot/slot format” maps to “including a list of slots”, and
“coordination” that is “configured through ... a MAC medium access control control element (MAC CE)”).
Transmit, to the first node, the first MAC CE including the information on the timing mode to be applied to a slot in the list of slots
You teaches that “[t]he coordination of resources (frequency, time in terms of slot/slot format, etc.) between semi-static IAB nodes (on the time scale of RRC signaling) should be supported ... The default TA and the dedicated TA may be independently configured through, for example, a MAC medium access control control element (MAC CE)” (You, 0286, 0373).
Here, “coordination” that is “configured through, for example, a MAC medium access control control element (MAC CE)” maps to “transmit ... the first MAC CE”,
one of the “IAB nodes” maps to “the first node”,
“the default TA and the dedicated TA” maps to “the information on the timing mode to be applied”, and
“slot/slot format” maps to “a slot indicated in the slot information”.
Information on the timing mode is applied to the slot in the list of slots
You teaches that “[t]he coordination of resources (frequency, time in terms of slot/slot format, etc.) between semi-static IAB nodes (on the time scale of RRC signaling) should be supported ... The following transmission timing alignment case across IAB nodes and IAB donors is discussed. Case 1: Alignment of DL transmission timings across IAB nodes and IAB donors ... Case 5: Case 4 for backhaul link timing and Case 1 for access link timing for one IAB node in different time slots.... The default TA and the dedicated TA may be independently configured through, for example, a MAC medium access control element (MAC CE)” (You, 0286, 0299, 0304, 0373).
Here, “timing alignment case” maps to “information on the timing mode”,
“configured” maps to “is applied”, and
“slot/slot format” maps to “the slot indicated in the slot information”.
You does not explicitly disclose:
Receive, from the second node, the second MAC CE including the information on the DL Tx power adjustment
The information on the DL Tx power adjustment is applied to slots in the list of slots
However, Liu2 does describe a method for adjusting transmit power at an integrated access and backhaul node.
Specifically, Liu2 teaches:
Receive, from the second node, the second MAC CE including the information on the DL Tx power adjustment
Liu2 states that “a target domain in the DCI or the MAC CE is used for triggering reporting the power adjustment parameter” (Liu2, 0111) and that “the reporting carrier of the power adjustment parameter may be at least one of the following: ... a MAC CE” (Liu2, 0100).
Here, a “MAC CE” that is the “reporting carrier of the power adjustment” corresponds to “receiv[ing], from the second node, the second MAC CE including the information on the DL Tx power adjustment”.
The information on the DL Tx power adjustment is applied to slots in the list of slots
Liu2 describes a “MAC CE” that is “the reporting carrier of the power adjustment parameter, later adding that “the power adjustment parameter becomes applicable from N time unit(s) after the target moment” and that “the target moment may be a current (sub-) slot or a symbol” (Liu2, 0100, 0148, 0150).
Here, “the power adjustment parameter” corresponds to “the information on the DL Tx power adjustment”,
“becomes applicable” corresponds to “is applied”, and
“a current (sub-) slot” maps to “slots in the list of slots”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the MAC CEs for requesting power adjustments and the subsequent MAC CE responses, as described in Liu2, into You’s method for configuring backhaul nodes. Power adjustment is useful for backhaul nodes, as it is for all nodes, so it would be obvious to incorporate some form of power adjustment into You’s method.
The combination of You and Liu2 also does not explicitly disclose:
A length of a field in the first MAC CE for indicating the timing mode is 2 bits
The combination of You and Liu2 also does not explicitly disclose:
A length of a field ... for indicating the information on the timing mode is 2 bits
However, Lee does describe a method for configuring uplink transmission parameters.
Specifically, Lee teaches:
A length of a field for indicating the at least one timing mode is 2 bits
“In a case that dl-DataToUL-ACK is a list of three or four timings, the HARQ indicator field is 2 bits” (Lee, 0268).
Here, “the HARQ indicator field is 2 bits” maps to “a length of a field ... is 2 bits”, and
“three or four timings” map to “the at least one timing mode”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the 2-bit field described in Lee into You’s method for configuring the timing of backhaul links. If there are three or four options for timing configuration, a 2-bit field is an obvious choice to concisely encompass the possible choices.
Claim 19 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 7 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 12 and 24:
You does not explicitly disclose:
Receive, from the first node, a third MAC CE including information on a desired DL Tx power adjustment for the slots in the list of slots
However, Liu2 teach:
Receive, from the first node, a third MAC CE including information on a desired DL Tx power adjustment for the slots in the list of slots
Liu2 describes a “MAC CE” that is “the reporting carrier of the power adjustment parameter, later adding that “the power adjustment parameter becomes applicable from N time unit(s) after the target moment” and that “the target moment may be a current (sub-) slot or a symbol” (Liu2, 0100, 0148, 0150).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the MAC CEs for requesting power adjustments and the subsequent MAC CE responses, as described in Liu2, into You’s method for configuring backhaul nodes. Power adjustment is useful for backhaul nodes, as it is for all nodes, so it would be obvious to incorporate some form of power adjustment into You’s method.
Claim 24 describes the same subject matter as claim 12 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (US 2023/0064157 A1) in view of Liu2 (US 2023/0016972 A1) and Lee (US 2023/0072973 A1) and further in view of Bi et al. (US 2023/0156644 A1, hereinafter “Bi”).
As to Claims 2, 8, 14, and 20:
The combination of You, Liu2, and Lee does not explicitly disclose:
One of:
A time for the IAB-MT transmission is determined as for a user equipment (UE)
The time for the IAB-MT transmission is set to a transmission time of a IAB-distribution unit (DU)
The time for the IAB-MT transmission is based on a timing advance offset value for a serving cell
However, Bi does describe different methods to calculate timing advance values for an integrated access and backhaul link.
Specifically, Bi teaches:
A time for the IAB-MT transmission is determined as for a user equipment (UE)
“(
L
A
,
D
L
,
L
A
,
U
L
)
represents the downlink and uplink between a node and a user equipment, the preceding downlink and uplink together may be considered as an access link (AL) ... Two functions are further defined for a relay node ... namely an IAB node mobile terminal (MT) ... To keep the network synchronization and thus reduce the mutual interference among nodes, downlink transmit timing (DL Tx timing, DTT) is required to be aligned among nodes” (Bi, 0020-0021).
Here, “downlink transmit timing” maps to “a time for the ... transmission”,
“an IAB node” maps to “the IAB-MT”,
“required to be aligned” maps to “determined”, and
“a user equipment” maps to “a user equipment (UE)”.
The time for the IAB-MT transmission is set to a transmission time of a IAB-distribution unit (DU)
“
T
D
i
f
f
represents the time difference between a distributed unit (DU) transmission from a serving cell and an integrated access and backhaul node-mobile terminal (IAB-MT) reception” (Bi, Claim 23).
Here, “
T
D
i
f
f
” maps to “the time ... is set to a transmission time”, and
“a distributed unit (DU) transmission” for “an integrated access and backhaul node-mobile terminal (IAB-MT)” maps to “The IAB-MT transmission ... of a IAB-distribution unit (DU)”.
The time for the IAB-MT transmission is based on a timing advance offset value for a serving cell
“
T
D
i
f
f
represents the time difference between a distributed unit (DU) transmission from a serving cell and an integrated access and backhaul node-mobile terminal (IAB-MT) reception” (Bi, Claim 23).
Here, “
T
D
i
f
f
” maps to “the time ... is based on a timing advance offset value”, and
“transmission from a serving cell and integrated access and backhaul node-mobile terminal (IAB-MT)” maps to “the IAB-MT transmission ... for a serving cell”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the timing alignment cases described in You to the transmission scenarios taught in Bi. You’s timing alignment cases can apply to a broad range of scenarios that include the common devices described in Bi.
Claim 8 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 from the perspective of the second node.
Claim 14 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 20 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of a method claim from the perspective of the second node.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (US 2023/0064157 A1) in view of Liu2 (US 2023/0016972 A1) and Lee (US 2023/0072973 A1) and further in view of Chatterjee et al. (US 2019/0342944 A1, hereinafter “Chatterjee”).
As to Claims 3, 9, 15, and 21:
The combination of You, Liu2, and Lee does not explicitly disclose:
One or more slots in the list of slots are not consecutive
The RRC message further includes information on a periodicity of the list of slots
However, Chatterjee does describe a method which includes configuring periodicity for a group of slots via RRC signaling.
Specifically, Chatterjee teaches:
One or more slots in the list of slots are not consecutive
“Referring now to Fig. 1, a portion of a signal 100 is shown including 10 slots where one in every five slots is shown as including reserved physical (time and frequency) resources” (Chatterjee, 0021).
Here, “one in every five slots” maps to “one or more slots in the list of slots are not consecutive”.
The RRC message further includes information on a periodicity of the list of slots
“[A] reserved physical resource set may be configured as a combination of one or more of the following steps, using UE-specific or cell-specific RRC signaling: (1) reserved physical resource configuration in time at the slot-level, which may for example be achieved as described above in terms of slots or groups of slots, e.g., using a time-domain periodicity and offset” (Chatterjee, 0034).
Here, “using ... RRC signaling” maps to “the RRC message further includes”,
“periodicity” maps to “information on a periodicity”, and
“slots or groups of slots” map to “the list of slots”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee’s method for configuring slot parameters via RRC signaling with You’s method for configuring backhaul timing. The backhaul communications require both slots and a timing mode, so it makes sense to configure both as part of one integrated method.
Claim 9 describes the same subject matter as Claim 3 from the perspective of the second node.
Claim 15 describes the same subject matter as Claim 3 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 21 describes the same subject matter as Claim 3 in the form of a method claim from the perspective of the second node.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights