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
The amendment to the claims filed on 10/27/2025 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 10/27/2025 (hereinafter Resp.) have been fully considered as follows.
First Applicant argues that the “null TCI state” disclosed in [¶0201] of Abedini et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0053486 (hereinafter Abedini) is not the same as a “silent state” in a certain time unit, i.e., “not to transmit or receive during the” time unit, as now required by Amended Claim 1 – Resp., ¶6:6. Examiner respectfully disagrees: Abedini clearly states that “a presence of a null value may indicate that there is no RU activity” – See [¶0201]. A person of ordinary skills in the art would reasonably understand that no activity at a Relay Unit, which inherently is a radio unit, means “not to transmit or receive.” In addition, even though Abedini discloses that the same null value “may indicate that the RU may power off” – See id., Abedini does not require the RU to power off during the corresponding time unit for the null TCI state. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Second, Applicant argues that Abedini does not disclose “the network device actively sending indication information that indicates the RU not to transmit or receive” – Resp., ¶1:7. Examiner respectfully points out that there is no support in the present application for “actively sending indication information that indicates the RU not to transmit or receive,” i.e., specifically indicating only the silent state – See, e.g., Spec.:[¶00154] (“in addition to indicating the access beam used by the relay node in the first time unit, the first indication information may further indicate that the one or more access beams used by the relay node in the first time unit or one or more time subunits included in the first time unit are silent”)(emphasis added); [¶00155](“an enabled state or a silent state of an access beam in a specific direction (an uplink receiving direction of the access link or a downlink sending direction of the access link) in the first time unit may be defined, as shown in Table 2” which “may be sent by the network device to the relay node by using signaling,” i.e., information about a silent state is sent together with other beams states). In addition, because [¶00155] intimates that “silent state” is the opposite of “enabled state,” a person of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the present invention would look at the 3GPP specifications describing activation/deactivation of TCI states, specifically §§ 5.18.4, 6.1.3.14&24, 3GPP TS 38.321 V16.2.1 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.321) describing mechanisms for indicating activation/deactivation state of a codepoint in the DCI Transmission Configuration Indication field – See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.321:127-128. This was explained in Note 1 to the last Office action. On the other hand, the smart relay disclosed in Abedini – See, e.g., [¶0122] and Fig. 7, has all the characteristics of a Integrated Access-Backhaul (IAB) MT device as defined in § 4.7.1, 3GPP TS 38.300 V16.3.0 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.300), therefore, “[t]he resource configuration assigns an attribute of hard, soft or unavailable to each symbol of each DU cell” whereby “scheduling cannot occur, except for some special cases, for symbols configured as unavailable” – See § 10.9, 3GPP TS 38.300:97, i.e., some symbols may be configured as “silent” because they are not available for UL/DL scheduling. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues that Abedini fails to disclose the same indication information indicating both the enabled and silent access beams in a time unit – See Resp.,¶2:7. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Abedini discloses that “[t]he configuration may include, for example, beamforming configurations and TDD configurations (e.g., Rx & Tx (forwarding) beamforming) and/or time-domain resource allocation (e.g., identify the resources used to adopt the indicated configuration or the indicated BF configuration)” – See [¶0162] (emphasis added). Therefore, this argument is also unpersuasive.
Last, because in the present application the silent state in some time units/subunits is broadly claimed, a new prior art reference was added to qualify this limitation making the argument that Abedini does not disclose sending indication information that indicates the node not to transmit or receive moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0053486 (hereinafter Abedini) and further in view of Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0052753 (hereinafter Raghavan).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Abedini teaches a beam management method (“a method of wireless communication at a wireless repeater device” – See [¶0006]), comprising:
receiving, by a first node, first indication information from a network device, wherein the first indication information indicates, for a first time unit, one or more access beams in an enabled state for receiving and/or sending one or more signals on an access link (at “a relay unit of the repeater device to communicate the traffic between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device . . . receiving, from the base station, control signaling comprising control information, in association with traffic relayed through the repeater device between a first wireless communication device and a second wireless communication device, obtaining a time division duplex state from the control information, . . . , obtaining an access-link TCI state index from the control information, obtaining a time domain resource allocation from the control information” – See id., wherein the time domain resource allocation TDRA “information defines, among other things, where a wireless communication device should expect to locate, in a slot, valid TDRA candidate occasions in the time domain” – See [¶0083] and Fig. 3, and in “TDD, transmissions in different directions on a given channel are separated from one another using time division multiplexing,” i.e., “at some times the channel is dedicated for transmissions in one direction, while at other times the channel is dedicated for transmissions in the other direction, where the direction may change very rapidly, e.g., several times per slot” – See [¶0060], and, “[t]he configuration may include . . . beamforming configurations and TDD configurations (e.g., Rx & Tx (forwarding) beamforming) and/or time-domain resource allocation ( e.g., identify the resources used to adopt the indicated configuration or the indicated BF configuration),” i.e., indicate slot and symbol level UL/DL configuration – See [¶0162]) and
one or more access beams in at least one subunit of the first time unit in a silent state in which the first indication information indicates the first node not to transmit or receive during the at least one subunit of the first time unit (“The repeater device may use the control information to configure a relay unit (RU) of the repeater device” e.g., using table 1400 – See [¶00179] and Fig. 14, wherein “an access-link TCI state index value, if indicated, may be an index to one of up to a given number, h, of access-link TCI states activated for an RU of the repeater device,” i.e., the enabled/activated access beams and their TDRA, and “the obtaining the access-link TCI state index may further include at least one of: receiving a periodic slot-level beamforming pattern or receiving a symbol-level beamforming pattern in a slot identified by a slot index number. Still further, a slot comprising a previously received periodic slot-level beam forming pattern may be overridden with a symbol-level beamforming pattern” – See [¶0241, i.e., a first time is slot level pattern, and the symbol-level pattern is a first time subunit, wherein “the symbol-level beamforming pattern of the representative slot 1704 may support the use of a null value” e.g., “a presence of a null value may indicate that there is no RU activity,” i.e., the RU does not send or receive on that symbol1 – See [¶0201] and lower Fig. 17; “the symbol-level beamforming pattern may include a null value in at least one symbol in at least one slot, and the relay unit powers off,” i.e., does not receive or send, i.e., is silent, “during the at least one symbol containing the null value” – See [¶0241]) and
the access link is a communication link between the first node and a terminal or a next-hop node (as shown at 810 in Fig. 8, and a “bidirectional repeater device . . .can simultaneously relay traffic in both the downlink and the uplink directions” – See [¶0191] and Figs. 9 and 15);
and sending and/or receiving, by the first node, a signal in the first time unit based on the one or more access beams indicated by the first indication information (at “a bidirectional repeater device . . . the pair of RUs may be used to simultaneously relay traffic in both the uplink and downlink directions” in conjunction with “table 1500 of FIG. 15,” that may be used to configure the repeater device – See [¶0191], including “a time configuration 1512” corresponding to the “TDRA 1412 parameter of FIG. 14 and its associated range of values” – See [¶0192]).
In the alternative, Abedini’s “no RU activity” – See [¶0201] does not disclose that the RU must remain silent during the symbols configured with TCI state having a null value.
Raghavan teaches method and apparatus whereby a base station “can determine a set of silent symbols for beam calibration measurements by the UE” – See [¶0109] and Fig. 9, and “indicate, to the UE, the beginning of the set of silent symbols and the duration of the set of silent symbols . . . using at least one of a downlink control information (DCI), a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE), or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling” – See [¶0114]; furthermore, the base station “can provide a signal indication to one or more base stations (e.g., base station 906) providing instructions to refrain from transmitting during the calibration process or otherwise coordinating the set of silent symbols” – See [¶0110] and Fig. 9.
Thus, Abedini and Raghavan each teaches beamforming in wireless communications. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the signaling of the set of symbols in a slot where other base stations must be silent for UE beam calibration, as taught by Raghavan, could have been combined with the signaling for configuring the relay unit with a null value TCI state in some symbols in Abedini, e.g., by overriding a default slot level TCI state index, because both methods use the same type of signaling, i.e., DCI, MAC-CE or RRC, and control elements are combinable. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of configuring the RU to refrain from transmitting during the set of silent symbols in certain slots/time units, thus allowing a UE to perform online beam calibration, as taught by Raghavan.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claim 2, Abedini further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first time unit comprises a first time subunit and a second time subunit, the first time subunit is for uplink receiving on the access link, the second time subunit is for downlink sending on the access link and the first indication information indicates a first access beam corresponding to the first time subunit and indicates a second access beam corresponding to the second time subunit. (“[t]he RU 910 and the second traffic path 918 (e.g., of the access-link) may be controlled by the base station 902 (e.g., by a DU in the base station 902, not shown)” and “the base station 902 may schedule UL transmissions and DL transmissions on the access-link (e.g., by transmitting control information on a control channel (not shown) to the UE 906)” – See [¶0146] and Fig. 9, e.g., using the first indication information which contains the TCI states for the access link2; furthermore, because “[i]n TDD, transmissions in different directions on a given channel are separated from one another using time division multiplexing” whereby “at some times the channel is dedicated for transmissions in one direction, while at other times the channel is dedicated for transmissions in the other direction, where the direction may change very rapidly, e.g., several times per slot” – See [¶0060] and “a slot may be defined according to a specified number of OFDM symbols with a given cyclic prefix (CP) length” and “may include mini-slots, sometimes referred to as shortened transmission time intervals (TTIs), having a shorter duration (e.g., 1, 2, or 3 OFDM symbols)” – See [¶0070], a “beam pair 1216 may carry bidirectional traffic between the repeater device 1204 and the first UE 1206,” wherein “beam pair 1216 includes a downlink beam from the repeater device 1204 to the first UE 1206 and an uplink beam from the first UE 1206 to the repeater device 1204,” i.e., DL and UL traffic is TDD-ed in different mini-slots/symbols – See [¶0170], whereby the UL and DL beams/TCI states on the access link are indicated as shown in Figs. 14 -15; furthermore, the mini-slots/symbols in a slot can be pre-configured for D/U/F, e.g., at TDD cell level or device level – See Note 1, infra, and overridden when “the symbol-level beamforming pattern such as that of representative slot 1704 may be configured at an RU of a repeater device by a DCI (that may be associated with, or multiplexed with downlink control information of a UE on a PDCCH), by MAC-CE (as depicted in FIG. 16A and FIG. 16B), or by RRC signaling” – See [¶0197] and Fig. 17).
Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claim 3, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Abedini teaches wherein the first time unit comprises a first time subunit and a second time subunit, e.g., a mini-slot or a symbol, the first time subunit is for uplink receiving on the access link, the second time subunit is for downlink sending on the access link (because this language is identical to that of Claim 2, this was explained in Regarding Claim 2, supra).
Abedini further teaches that the first indication information indicates a third access beam (with respect to Figs. 14 and 15, “an access-link TCI state index value, if indicated, may be an index to one of up to a given number, h, of access-link TCI states activated for an RU of the repeater device” and “there may be up to 8 (h=8) access-link TCI state index values” – See [¶0185], i.e., there can be a TCI state index value indicating the configuration of a third access beam).
Abedini further teaches that the first indication information indicates third beam corresponds to the first time subunit and the second time subunit (“With regard to the RU configuration, there may exist a default TCI state,” e.g., “in the event that the number of active states is equal to one, [as indicated by the first indication information] the default TCI state may be the active TCI state” – See [¶0199], e.g., that one active TCI state may correspond the third beam, and “the indicated access-link TCI state may be used until another DCI [i.e., a new indication information] indicates a different access-link TCI state” – See [¶0200], i.e., the third beam is used in all time subunits).
Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claim 4, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Abedini further teaches wherein the first time unit is for uplink receiving on the access link, and the first indication information indicates a fourth access beam that corresponds to the first time unit and that is for uplink receiving (e.g., in Fig. 14, when the TDD State is ‘1’ (UL), “an access-link TCI state index value, if indicated, may be an index to one of up to a given number, h, of access-link TCI states activated for an RU of the repeater device . . . up to 8 (h=8) access-link TCI state index values” and “each access-link TCI state may be an index to a set of beam identifiers” – See [¶0185]; therefore, there may be a TCI State Index that indicates a fourth access beam configuration, and the TDRA in Fig. 14 indicates the first time unit).
Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claim 5, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Abedini further teaches wherein the first time unit is for downlink sending on the access link, and the first indication information indicates a fifth access beam that corresponds to the first time unit and that is used for downlink sending (similar logic as in Regarding Claim 4, supra, applies, only that, as to Fig. 14, the TDD State is ‘0’ (DL) and yet another TCI State Index indicates a fifth access beam configuration, and the TDRA still indicates the first time unit allocation).
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Amended Claim 7, Abedini discloses in Fig. 18 a “smart repeater” which is a communication apparatus, comprising a transceiver (1810) and at least one processor (1804), wherein the transceiver is configured to receive first indication information from a network device (“The transceiver 1810 provides a communication interface or means for communicating with various other apparatus over a transmission medium (e.g., air interface)” and “may further be coupled to one or more antennas/antenna array/antenna module 1820” – See [¶0206] and “the processor 1804 may include communication and processing circuitry 1841. . . configured to receive and relay uplink traffic and uplink control messages (e.g., similar to uplink traffic 116 and uplink control 118 of FIG. 1) and transmit relayed downlink traffic and downlink control messages ( e.g., similar to downlink traffic 112 and downlink control 114) via the antennas/ antenna array/antenna module 1820 and the transceiver 1810” – See [¶0209]; whereby “the processor 1804 may include time division duplex circuitry 1842 configured for various functions, including, for example, obtaining a time division duplex state from the control information” – See [¶0210], i. e., a first indication information)
wherein the first indication information indicates, for a first time unit, one or more access beams in an enabled state for receiving and/or sending one or more signals on an access link, (“the processor 1804 may include access-link TCI state index circuitry 1844 configured for various functions, including, for example, obtaining access-link TCI state index from the control information,” i.e., access beams configuration – See [¶0212], and “the processor 1804 may include time domain resource allocation circuitry 1845 configured for various functions, including, for example, obtaining a time domain resource allocation from the control information,” i.e., a first time unit is the TDRA for the activated/enabled beams/TCI-states– See [¶0213], e.g., “[t]he TDRA 1412 parameter of FIG. 14 . . . referred to as time configuration . . . includes, for example, start symbol and duration” – See [¶0192], and can be “periodic slot-level beamforming patterns” – See [¶0196] and Fig. 17 upper), and further limitations recited with the same language as used in Amended Claim 1.
Because Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan, Amended Claim 7 is also obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claims 8-11, dependent from Amended Claim 7, they merely recite the same limitations as Claims 2-5, recited with the same language only from the perspective of the apparatus of Amended Claim 7, obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan. Because each of the Claims 2-5 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan, Claims 8-11 are also obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claim 13, Abedini teaches in Fig. 21 a communication apparatus, comprising a transceiver (2110) and at least one processor (the base station 2100 “employing a processing system 2114 . . . including a bus interface 2108, a bus 2102, memory 2105, a processor 2104, and a computer-readable medium 2106” – See [¶¶0247-48], and “the processor 2104 may include communication and processing circuitry 2141 configured for various functions, including for example communicating with a user equipment (UE), a wireless communication device, a network core ( e.g., a 5G core network), other base stations or scheduling entities, or any other entity, such as, for example, an IAB node,” e.g., “processing circuitry 2141 may include one or more hardware components that provide the physical structure that performs processes related to wireless communication (e.g., signal reception and/or signal transmission) and signal processing (e.g., processing a received signal and/or processing a signal for transmission)” – See [¶0250]),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate first indication information (“the processor 2104, as utilized in base station 2100, may be used to implement any one or more of the processes described and illustrated, for example, in FIG. 22” – See [¶0248], wherein, “the process 2200 may be carried out by the base station 2100” – See [¶0255], and, at step 2212, “the base station may transmit, to the repeater device, control information over control signaling to configure a relay unit of the repeater device” – See [¶0263], after obtaining various components of the indication information at steps 2204-2210)
wherein the first indication information has the same limitations as recited, with the same language, in Amended Claims 1 and 7, which are obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan; and the transceiver is configured to send the first indication information to the first node (e.g., at step 2212 in Fig. 22, “the base station may transmit, to the repeater device, control information over control signaling to configure a relay unit of the repeater device” through the processing circuitry 2141 and transceiver 2110 – See [¶0263] and Fig. 21).
Therefore, Amended Claim 13 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claims 14-17, dependent from Amended Claim 13, each claim merely recites, with the same language, the same limitations as in Claims 2-5, respectively. Because Claims 2-5 are obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan, Claims 14-17 are also obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claim 19, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Abedini further teaches wherein when the signal is a predefined signal having a one-to-one correspondence with an access beam, (“the smart relay may use higher level functionality to sense channels, implement MIMO functionality, select various beams in conjunction with a use of various synchronization signal block (SSB) information and transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states” – See [¶0122] and Fig. 7; and [d]uring an initial integration and capability exchange, the repeater device may indicate how many (=K) beams it can create” – See [¶0184], whereby the repeater device indicates for each active beam an “access-link TCI state [that] may be an index to one of K SSBs sent by the repeater device,” e.g., “each access-link TCI state may be an index to an SSB and/or CSI-RS, or SRS resource,” i.e., a predefined signal has a one-on-one correspondence with an access beam – See [¶0185]; e.g., when “the base station sends K SSBs presumably using K different beams . . . the repeater device may be configured with g=8 of these K=16 SSBs (these may be referred to as the active TCI states)” – See [¶0240])
the first node applies the correspondence in preference to the first indication information (“there is a semi-statically configured default access-link TCI state per time resource” – See [¶0200], which “may be obtained from at least one of: a TDDconfigCommon, a TDDconfigDedicated, or a slot format identification (SFI) parameter of the MT” – See [¶0233] e.g., when the base station activates at the MT3 of the relay with default beams corresponding to K SSBs of the relay, and “[c]onfiguring the relay unit according to the time division duplex state may cause the repeater device (or the relay unit of the repeater device) to relay the traffic in a direction indicated by the time division duplex state” – See [¶0224], e.g., “[i]n a case where a time division duplex state may not be included in the control information, the repeater device may use a default time division duplex state” – See [¶0233]; this situation may happen, e.g., when the indicator tci-PresentInDCI is not configured for the CORESET monitored for the PDCCH signal – See 3GPP 38.331:389). In addition, Raghavan teaches that “the 5G/NR frame structure is assumed to be TDD, with subframe 4 being configured with slot format 28 (with mostly DL), where D is DL, U is UL, and X is flexible for use between DL/UL” whereby “any particular subframe may be configured with any of the various available slot formats . . . semi-statically/statically through radio resource control (RRC) signaling) through a received slot format indicator (SFI)” – See [¶0039]).
Therefore, Claim 19 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Regarding Claim 20, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Abedini further teaches wherein when the first time unit comprises a flexible symbol, the first node ignores the first indication information on the flexible symbol (“In a case where a symbol is predesignated as a flexible symbol, the time division duplex state 1406 may be dynamically assigned to either indicate a DL symbol or a UL symbol” – See [¶0183] and when “the periodic slot-level beamforming patterns 1702 and the symbol-level beamforming pattern of the representative slot 1704 may support . . . the use of flexible TCI states . . . the repeater device may use a way other than the periodic slot-level beamforming patterns 1702 and/or the symbol-level beamforming pattern of the representative slot 1704 to obtain (e.g., determine, calculate, derive) a default TCI state index,” e.g., “a flexible TCI state may mean that a repeater device is to (use other means) determine a default TCI state” other than the state indicated in, i.e., ignoring, the configuration information – See [¶0201] when “the periodic slot-level beamforming pattern, or the symbol-level beamforming pattern may include a flexible symbol in at least one symbol in at least one slot” and “the repeater device obtains a default TCI state index of the flexible signal from a location other than the periodic slot-level beamforming pattern or the symbol-level beamforming pattern” – See [¶0241]).
Therefore, Claim 20 is obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
In sum, Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abedini in view of Raghavan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nam et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0052775;
Muruganathan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0396375 disclosing a method performed by a network node of a cellular communication system comprising transmitting a DCI having a DCI format comprising TCI state indication and further describes TCI states, including their activation/deactivation;
Xu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0328641 disclosing beamforming with multiple panels whereby a wireless device receives configuration parameters indicating a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state index associated with a first TCI state, of a first antenna panel, for uplink transmissions; and a second TCI state, of a second antenna panel, for uplink transmissions showing the correspondence between TCI state indices and DCI codepoints;
Akoum et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0369303 discloses beam management procedures that acquire and maintain a set of transmission and/or reception beams that can be used for downlink and/or uplink transmission and/or reception in a wireless system with IAB nodes whereby the backhaul links carrying relay links (Ur) are based on the same channels and protocol as the access links carrying user data traffic (Uu), so then the IAB node can receive relay links (Ur) in the same manner that a UE receives and processes relay links;
Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0359435 disclosing methods and apparatus in a wireless system whereby a base station may control one or more aspects of beam coordination between UEs for establishing a relay link;
Sun et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0271823 teaches a beam indication processing method applied to a user equipment, including: determining beam indication information to be currently used; determining a beam for reception according to the determined beam indication information; and, performing receiving according to the determined beam;
Takeda et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0267961 disclosing method and base station apparatus configured to establish a wireless link for a backhaul line with a relay apparatus, and provide a first period in which a radio resource is used by the base station apparatus for the backhaul line, and a second period in which the radio resource is not used by the backhaul line;
Zheng et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0195534 disclosing a method to perform beam management including transmitting indication information on a first link of the network device to indicate current transmit power of the first link of the network device wherein the first link is an access link between the network device and UE or a next hop node of the network device;
Wang et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication WO 2022022505, discloses a method to obtain silent instructions from network-side devices or location management devices, wherein the silence instruction is used to indicate at least one of the following: Resource silence; Resource set silent; Frequency domain silence; Temporal silence; Space beam silence; or Port silent;
3GPP TS 38.300 V16.3.0 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.213 V16.3.0 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.214 V16.3.0 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for data (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.321 V16.2.1 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.331 V16.2.0 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 16)”.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1Because the smart repeater shown in Fig. 7 behaves as a Mobile Termination at L2/L3, the smart repeater may be an Integrated Access-Backhaul (IAB) MT device as defined in § 4.7.1, 3GPP TS 38.300 V16.3.0 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.300). For a IAB-MT, “[t]he resource configuration assigns an attribute of hard, soft or unavailable to each symbol of each DU cell,” i.e., in addition to the U/D/F state known in the art, whereby “scheduling cannot occur . . . for symbols configured as unavailable” – See § 10.9, 3GPP TS 38.300:97, i.e., some symbols may be configured as “silent” because they are not available for UL/DL scheduling.
2 A person of ordinary skills in the art would also know that the base station may broadcast or send directly the ServingCellConfig Information Element (IE) to the relay unit and ServingCellConfig contains the tdd-UL-DL-Configuration and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated-IAB-MT-r16 parameters that configure the D/U/F symbols in a slot of the serving cell for the UE and the IAB/relay unit, respectively, in a TDD cell – See 3GPP TS 38.331 V16.2.0 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331), at page 604-610; see also 3GPP 38.331: 650-652 (describing the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated IE which determines the UE/IAB-MT specific Uplink/Downlink TDD configuration and indicates slotSpecificConfigurationToAddModList which “allows overriding UL/DL allocations provided in tdd-UL-DL-configurationCommon, see TS 38.213 [13], clause 11.1”); see also 3GPP TS 38.213 V16.3.0 (2020-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.213).
3 The TDDconfigCommon and TDDconfigDedicated correspond to the cell specific Uplink/Downlink TDD configuration tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon and the slot specific configuration tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated-IAB-MT-r16 described in Note 2, supra; see also § 14, 3GPP TS 38.213:152-157, describing slot format configuration for the IAB-MT of an IAB node whereby “[f]or each serving cell, an IAB-MT can be provided an indication for a slot format over a number of slots by tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated-IAB-MT” as shown in Table 14-2, at page 154. To be sure, as disclosed in 3GPP 38.331: 651 regarding slot specific configuration for a IAB-MT relay, “overriding UL/DL allocations provided in tdd-UL-DL-configurationCommon [has] a limitation that effectively only flexible symbols can be overwritten in Rel-16,” i.e., that format will be “preferred” over a DCI indicating another slot format (albeit this behavior refers to UL/DL symbol allocation, not the respective beams).
Prosecution Insights