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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, Subspecies C, Sub-Subspecies iii corresponding to Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 and 11 in the reply filed on 9/23/2025 is acknowledged.
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 10-11 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 is rejected as being vague and indefinite.
(dependent upon claim 7, Claim 4, Claim 2)
Claim 2 recites “wherein the power control parameters include a second power amplification gain configured or preset by a base station, or a maximum transmitting power configured or preset by the base station.” It can be seen that Applicant recites A or B. In the rejection, examiner gives no weight to the optional limitation B.
In Claim 10, which ultimately depends on Claim 2, the claims recite “the determining of the first power amplification gain according to the power control parameters and the measured power of the transmitted signal further comprises: if the measured power of the transmitted signal is less than or equal to the maximum transmitting power, determining that the first power amplification gain is the second power amplification gain; and determining the first power amplification gain according to whether a power amplifier for amplifying power in the device for forwarding signals is saturated.” There is a lack of antecedent basis to “the maximum transmitting power” due to the optional language in claim 2 and it would be the first time that limitation is positively recited. For the purpose of examination in Claim 10, the examiner will interpret the limitation as “a maximum transmitting power”.
Further in Claim 2, if examiner gave weight to B but not A, then Claim 10 would have an antecedent basis issue with the limitation “determining that the first power amplification gain is the second power amplification gain”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 112(b) as vague and indefinite as it does not remedy the issues in Claim 10.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abedini (US2021/0306962).
Regarding Claim 1, Abedini teaches A method for signal transmission performed by a device for forwarding signals in a communication system (Par.16 and Par.18), the method comprising: determining a first power amplification gain (Par.76, the repeater may determine the gain value (1st gain) based on gain configuration information); and forwarding a received signal based on the first power amplification gain (Par.78, repeater transmits gain adjusted communication).
Regarding Claim 2, Abedini teaches prior to determining the first power amplification gain, determining power control parameters (Par.76, Par.61-62, gain configuration information from base station is prior to determining gain value at the repeater), wherein the power control parameters include a second power amplification gain (i.e. max or min gain) configured or preset by a base station (Par.62, Par.73-74, base station sets/configures the gain (i.e. 2nd gain) in the gain configuration information) or a maximum transmitting power configured or preset by the base station (optional language, no patentable weight given).
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) 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini (US20210306962) in view of Ashworth (US2021/0409106).
Regarding Claim 4, Abedini teaches determining of the first power amplification gain (Par.76, the repeater may determine the gain value based on one or more gain control factors (i.e. power control parameters) determined locally at the repeater), however Abedini does not expressly teach measuring a power of the received signal or a power of a transmitted signal; and determining the first power amplification gain according to a measurement result.
Ashworth teaches measuring a power of the received signal or a power of a transmitted signal; and determining the first power amplification gain according to a measurement result (Fig.3, Par.43, Par.47, Par.101)
A skilled artisan recognizes that it would have been obvious to modify Abedinis system that determines first gain value based on local factors in combination with the teachings of Ashworth which teaches that it is known for gain to be set/adjusted based on measured received or transmitted signal power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Abedini with the teachings of Ashworth to provide an enhanced device that adjusts gain at the repeater based on its local factors such that optimal signal quality is achieved by avoiding saturation/oscillation.
Regarding Claim 7, determining the first power amplification gain according to the power control parameters and the measured power of the received signal (See rejection Claims2 and Claim 4); or determining the first power amplification gain according to the power control parameters and the measured power of the transmitted signal (See rejection of Claims 2 and Claim 4).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini (US20210306962) and Ashworth (US2021/0409106) in further view of Wilhite (US20120142269).
Regarding Claim 10, by the combination of Abedini and Ashworth Claim 7 is taught, Abedini teaches that it is well known to receive gain configuration information from a base station (i.e. 2nd gain) which could include a specific value (Par.76:7-10) and further teaches that the repeater can make a decision about using the specific value based on local factors at the repeater (Par.76) and Ashworth teaches determining the first power amplification gain according to whether a power amplifier for amplifying power in the device for forwarding signals is saturated (Ashworth, Par.47, Par.43, saturation caused by oscillation so gain adjusted to make oscillation go away, Par.47), however the combination does not expressly teach if the measured power of the transmitted signal is less than or equal to a maximum transmitting power, determining that the first transmission power amplification gain is the second power amplification gain.
Wilhite does teach that if a transmission power threshold is exceeded than issues may arise and power reduction and gain adjustment is needed (Par.65, exceed power threshold. Par.69, reduce the power level by 10db, Par.72). A skilled artisan would recognize that in the situation where the measured power of the transmitted signal is less than or equal to a maximum transmitting power (i.e. threshold) then no gain adjustment would be needed. In the combined system of Abedini and Ashworth, it would be obvious for the first transmission power amplification gain to be the second power amplification gain since no gain adjustment is needed, even after consideration of local factors, as can be seen by the teachings of Wilhite.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Abedini and Ashworth with the teachings of Wilhite to provide an efficient device that can make gain adjustments at the repeater based on its local factors only when needed.
Regarding Claim 11, The method of claim 10, wherein the determining of the first power amplification gain according to whether the power amplifier for amplifying power in the device for forwarding signals is saturated comprises: if the power amplifier for amplifying power in the device for forwarding signals is saturated, determining that the first power amplification gain is a difference value between the second power amplification gain and a third variable (No patentable weight given due to optional “if” limitation); and if the power amplifier for amplifying power in the device for forwarding signals is unsaturated, determining that the first power amplification gain is the second power amplification gain (See rejection of Claim 10, where power level does not exceed the power threshold (i.e. unsaturated)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648