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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 4/20/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. “Park” US 2023/0133633 in view of Wang US 2025/0212185.
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).
Park does not disclose based on a condition associated with the UE, stop forwarding additional signals received by the UE to the base station in a time duration wherein the determining to stop forwarding the additional signals includes turning off a repeater function of the wireless device for the time duration; however, Wang teaches that a repeater device (120) can switch between an on and off state based on a period of time (i.e. duration); Paragraph 145. The repeater device switches between the on/off state (i.e. forwarding or not forwarding) based on control information. This control information is determined based on configuration of a terminal device and channel qualities with respect to the terminal device; Paragraph 51. Thus one can see the off state (i.e. stop forwarding) is associated with the UE as claimed.
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 turning a repeater on/off for a time duration based on conditions associated with the UE as taught by Wang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can have a more improved energy efficiency as taught by Wang; Paragraphs 49.
Regarding claim 10, Park does not disclose monitoring an UL grant including control information indicting UL transmission from the UE to the base station in the time duration where the condition associated with the UE is the UL grant is not detected by the wireless device; however, Wang teaches PRACH and PDSCH (which are known to carry UL grants); Paragraph 84. The repeater has the ability to monitoring for signals from a network device; Paragraph 56. The repeater device switches between the on/off state (i.e. forwarding or not forwarding) based on control information. This control information is determined based on configuration of a terminal device and channel qualities with respect to the terminal device; Paragraph 51. Thus one can see the off state (i.e. stop forwarding) is associated with the UE and there is not an UL grant in this information.
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 condition is an UL grant not detected as taught by Wang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can have a more improved energy efficiency as taught by Wang; Paragraphs 49.
Regarding claim 11, Park does not disclose intercepting a control signal transmit from the base station to the UE wherein the control information is carried in the control signal; however, Wang teaches the network device sends control information signals to the repeater; Step 233 of Figure 2, see Paragraph 140).
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 intercepting a control signal from the base station as taught by Wang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can have a more improved energy efficiency as taught by Wang; Paragraphs 49.
Regarding claim 12, Park does not disclose receiving a control signal transmit from the base station to the UE wherein the control information is carried in the control signal; however, Wang teaches the network device sends control information signals to the repeater; Step 233 of Figure 2, see Paragraph 140).
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 receiving a control signal from the base station as taught by Wang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can have a more improved energy efficiency as taught by Wang; Paragraphs 49.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wang and further 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 Wang 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 Wang 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 with respect to claim(s) 9-15, 17 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights