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 .
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 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
The following is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 01/29/2026.
Claims 16 and 23 - 41 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 16, 35 and 41 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 15, 17 – 22 have been cancelled.
Claim interpretation
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”.
When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Response to Arguments
The arguments/remarks presented by the applicant/applicant ‘s representative on 01/29/2026 were reviewed thoroughly, however the following should be noted:
On page 13 of the arguments submitted on 01/29/2026, the applicant set for the following:
“…Moreover, the cited references do not disclose or suggest maintaining separate configurations for different communications, where each configuration includes its own set of parameters that is independently applicable depending on whether a first communication or a second communication is performed. “
The examiner understands the applicants is implying there must be two separate and distinct configuration that is being sent from one node to the other using tow different communication pertaining to the independent claims. However, the first configuration comprising a first set of configuration parameters that is sent by a first communication and a second configuration comprising a second set of configuration parameters that is sent by a second communication can be interpreted as a single communication since there is no language in the independent claims that states the first configuration or its parameters of a first communication should be different or distinct from the second configuration and parameters in a second communication. Take for example if a single signal is being set from potin A to point B (that possess configuration parameters), then this signal can be referred to as a first signal and/or a second signal. If two signals must be present and distinct from each other then then there must be more language such as the first signal/communication is different or distinct from the second signal/communication. As a result, the prior arts used in the last non-final is maintained, however, to expedite prosecution an updated search has been conducted and an additional reference is included to address the issue the configurations/parameters and communication should be different and distinct from each other, although this not part or interpretation of the independent claims. 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).
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) 16, 35 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2023/0309067 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0189091 A1) and Liu (EP 4 106 408 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, You discloses: An integrated access and backhaul (IAB) donor (see figure 10 (c), “IAB-donor gNB”), comprising:
at least one memory; and (¶ 0385)
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the IAB donor to: (¶ 0385)
send, to an IAB distributed unit (IAB-DU) of another device, (see figure 21, step 211, the parent node (can be referred to as the donor IAB: ¶ 0151) sends a message to IAB node consisting of a DU) at least one of:
a first configuration comprising a first set of configuration parameters for a first communication, wherein the first set of configuration parameters comprises first information indicating whether a plurality of symbols is one or more of hard, soft, or not applicable, [¶ 0308, the information that is being sent from the donor/parent IAB is HSNA (hard/soft/not applicable) possess configuration information such as time domain information which involves symbols, see ¶ 0288 - ¶ 0293]
a second configuration comprising a second set of configuration parameters for a second communication, wherein the second set of configuration parameters comprises
second information indicating whether a plurality of physical resource blocks (PRBs) is one or more of hard, soft, or not applicable, and [in the same information being sent that involves the first configuration (see figure 21, step 211) seen in the above limitation, there is a second configuration, see ¶ 0308, that is, the HSNA is being configured in the frequency domain as well, this involves PRB, see ¶ 0320. See arguments above as to why the first communication can be interpreted as the second communication]
You disclose every aspect of claim 16, except: “…send, to a network node, an information element (IE) comprising the first information, or the second information, or both in association with the IAB-DU”. In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses the above missing feature, first looking at ¶ 0164/¶ 0017, the source IAB donor will forward via the X2/Xn interface a second information to another donor via the core network, ¶ 0171 further states the second configuration information or second information can possess a variety of parameters for the DU one set of parameters recited is: “That is, the second configuration information may also include an available resource, an unavailable resource, a hard-type resource, a soft-type resource, and the like that are configured for the DU.”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify You’s system in view of Zhou. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to perform resource allocation [¶0005 of Zhou].
Both You and Zhou does not disclose a first communication and a second communications with its respective parameters/configurations that are distinct from each other that is being transmitted to another IAB device. In the same field of endeavor Liu discloses the above missing features. First, it can be seen from figure 8, there is one communication that has two configurations which are sent from the donor to a first node that possesses a DU (¶ 0150: the first node can be an IAB node). The first configuration and second configurations are seen in table 2 on the 16th page, which possess configuration parameters such as hard, soft and unavailable resources. In ¶ 0172 states “The IAB node may separately obtain the first configuration information and the second configuration…” (¶ 0150: the first node can be an IAB node).
In another scenario, ¶ 0170, states the donor node can send first and second configuration to the first parent and to the second parent (this means that one other IAB device can receive both configuration), ¶0172 further states: “The second parent node may separately obtain the first configuration information and the second configuration information…”, separately obtaining each configuration information/parameters means two separate communication is evident at the IAB/parent node (another IAB device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify You’s system in view of Zhou and Liu. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to solve the issue for performing resource configuration on the IAB which Liu suggested as not being done as yet [¶0005 of Liu].
Claims 35 and 41 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 16.
Claim(s) 23 – 26, 29 – 34 and 36 - 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2023/0309067 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0189091 A1), Liu (EP 4 106 408 A1) and Park et al. (US 2021/0298000).
Claim 23, You in view of Zhou and Liu discloses: The IAB donor of claim 16 (see rejected claim 16).
You in view of Zhou and Liu does not disclose: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB donor to receive a third configuration comprising a first indication of a set of flexible resources, a first association with a first reference signal, and a second association with a second reference signal. In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0426: “… the configuration parameter may further indicate … allowed or not allowed to be activated with the flexible resources…whether the flexible resources are allowed to be activated for a first beam (e.g., SS beam, CSI-RS beam, etc.) of the first cell and for a second beam (e.g., SS beam, CSI-RS beam, etc.) of the second cell…”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify You’s system in view of Zhou, Liu and Park. The motivation for making the above modification would have been “…indicating/identifying the flexible resources…” [see ¶0424 of Park].
Claim 36 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 23.
Claim 24, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 23, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB donor to determine whether a resource in the set of flexible resources is to be used for a downlink communication, or an uplink communication, or both. [¶ 0428 see also ¶ 0171 of Zhou].
Claim 37 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 24.
Claim 25, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 24, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB donor to, in response to determining that the resource in the set of flexible resources is to be used for the downlink communication, transmit the first reference signal according to a first configuration. [¶ 0426, “…activated for a first beam (e.g., SS beam, CSI-RS beam, etc.) of the first cell…”, see also ¶ 0171 of Zhou].
Claim 38 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 25.
Claim 26, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 25, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB donor to, in response to determining that the resource in the set of flexible resources will be used for the uplink communication, transmit the second reference signal according to a second configuration. [¶ 0426, “…activated … for a second beam (e.g., SS beam, CSI-RS beam, etc.) of the second cell …”, see also ¶ 0171 of Zhou].
Claim 39 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 26.
Claim 29, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 26, wherein the first reference signal and the second reference signal are transmitted using the same frequency resources and different time resources. [¶ 0426 deals with overlapping resources that are in time and frequency and based on the idea of this overlapping resources the various parameter of frequency and time resources being overlapping or not is easily configurable to a person having ordinary skill in the art].
Claim 30, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 26, wherein the first reference signal and the second reference signal are transmitted using different frequency resources and different time resources. [¶ 0426 deals with overlapping resources that are in time and frequency and based on the idea of this overlapping resources the various parameter of frequency and time resources being overlapping or not is easily configurable to a person having ordinary skill in the art].
Claim 31, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 26, wherein the first reference signal and the second reference signal are transmitted using different frequency resources and the same time resources. [¶ 0426 deals with overlapping resources that are in time and frequency and based on the idea of this overlapping resources the various parameter of frequency and time resources being overlapping or not is easily configurable to a person having ordinary skill in the art].
Claim 32, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 26, wherein the first reference signal and the second reference signal are transmitted using overlapping frequency resources and different time resources. [¶ 0426 deals with overlapping resources that are in time and frequency and based on the idea of this overlapping resources the various parameter of frequency and time resources being overlapping or not is easily configurable to a person having ordinary skill in the art].
Claim 33, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 26, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB donor to apply a first spatial filter to the first reference signal in association with a second spatial filter applied to the downlink communication. [¶ 0426 in view of ¶ 0428, the spatial filter is analogous to the beam regarding the first reference signal].
Claim 34, Park further discloses: The IAB donor of claim 26, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB donor to apply a first spatial filter to the second reference signal in association with a second spatial filter applied to the uplink communication. [¶ 0426 in view of ¶ 0428, the spatial filter is analogous to the beam regarding the second reference signal].
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 27 – 28 and 40 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 as well as overcoming all rejection(s)/objection(s) set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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