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 .
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 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The last limitation of claim 9 states “to stop forwarding additional signals on the second set of time-frequency resources in a time duration”. The claim never mentions any forwarding being done, by the wireless device, of additional signals on the second set of time-frequency resources. The only mention of forwarding signals is from the wireless device to the base station on the first set of time-frequency resources.
Therefore, the omitted steps are with respect to additional signals and the wireless device forwarding information to the UE on the second set of time-frequency resources.
Appropriate correction required.
Claims 10-12 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 10 recites the UL grant includes information indicating transmission from the UE to the base station on the first set of time-frequency resources. It is unclear how the UL grant determines this because the UE does not transmit information on the first set of time-frequency resources. According to claim 9, the UE communicates on the second set of time frequency resources and it is the wireless device that communicates with the base station on the first set of time-frequency resources.
Appropriate correction required.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation "the control information" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is when control information is first introduced. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will examine claims 11 and 12 as if they are dependent on claim 10.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim 16 states “wherein determining to stop forwarding the received signals comprises…”. This claim lacks antecedent basis because the signals in claim 9 that are being stopped from forwarded are “additional” signals, not “the received signals” of claim 16. It is unclear what signals are actually being stopped.
Appropriate correction required.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. “Park” US 2023/0133633.
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches a method of wireless communication of a wireless device (540 of Figure 5), comprising:
receiving signals to be forwarded to a base station on a first set of time-frequency resources from a user equipment (UE) on a second set of time-frequency resources (device 540 relays signals from/to a UE (120) and base station (550). The device 540 receives signals on wireless link 530 and frequency converts them before forwarding them to the base station 550 on link 560; Paragraph 76 and Figure 5. The signal received on link 530 is viewed as the second set of time/frequency resources and the transmission on link 560 is viewed as the first time-frequency resources);
forwarding the received signals to the base station on the first set of time-frequency resources (the received signals on link 530 are sent (i.e. forwarded) to the base station 550. This occurs after the frequency conversion (i.e. first-time frequency resources); Paragraph 76);
subsequently determining, based on a condition associated with the UE, to stop forwarding additional signals on the second set of time-frequency resources in a time duration (The claim never requires there to be any forwarding of additional signals on the second set of time-frequency resources, thus this limitation carries no weight in the event nothing is being transmit. Figure 5 of Park shows an example of the UE sending signals towards the base station and the device (540) converting the frequency; however, there is a lack of forwarding information from the satellite 540 to UE 120 on the second set of time-frequency resources and therefore this reads on the “stopping” as claimed).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Song et al. “Song” CN 1753326 (see attached for translation).
Regarding claim 13, Park does not disclose a UE has insufficient transmission power allocated to transmit signals; however, Song teaches a UE will stop data transmission until a high enough power assignment is received; Page 8 last paragraph before the “drawing description” section. One can see when the UE doesn’t have enough power to transmit, it will stop transmission. Once combined with Park, this would mean the UE doesn’t transmit any data and thus the repeater (of Park) would be stopping any forwarding since there is nothing to forward from the UE.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Park to include a UE stopping data transmission if it doesn’t have enough power as taught by Song.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the scheduling of UE transmission time can be determined base don transmission power as taught by Song; Page 8 last paragraph before the “drawing description” section.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Gurelli et al. “Gurelli” US 2023/0108347.
Regarding claim 17, Park does not teach stopping forwarding of data based on control signaling from the base station; however, Gurelli teaches the base station sends an indication to the node (i.e. wireless device) to stop forwarding signals to the UE; Paragraph 123.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Park to include the base station sending an indication to stop forwarding to the wireless device as taught by Gurelli.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can avoid interference as taught by Gurelli; Paragraph 123.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yiu et al. “Yiu” US 2019/0075498.
Regarding claim 18, Park does not teach stopping forwarding of data based on control signaling from the UE; however, Yiu teaches the UE sends an indication to the base station (i.e. wireless device) to stop forwarding data; Paragraph 143.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Park to include the UE sending an indication to stop forwarding to the wireless device as taught by Yiu.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can avoid sending messages that are no longer needed as taught by Yiu; Paragraph 123.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the election of claims 9-18 with traverse arguing that the search and examination would not pose an undue burden on the Examiner.
The Examiner restfully disagrees. As noted in the restriction and reiterated here below, claims 1-8 and 19-20 are drawn to the idea of allocating transmission power based on priority and maximum transmission power limits performed by a UE. Claims 9-18 are not concerned with these details and are directed towards a wireless device (repeater) determining whether or not to forward received signals between a base station and a UE. The inventions are separate and distinct and cause an undue burden on the Examiner to perform search and examination if all claims remained pending.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411