DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
I. 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
II. This action is in response to applicants amendment/arguments filed on January 13, 2026. This action is made FINAL.
Allowable Subject Matter
III. Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 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.
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.
IV. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network” in lines 5-7.
First, it is unclear what the phrase “according to a control of the network” refers to and/or how it is related to “determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded”. The limitation seems to indicate that the first device and the network are involved in the determining. However, the limitation does not particularly point out in what way the first device and network are involved.
Second, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals” and/or how it relates to the “determining”. The phrase “which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals” is unclear does not particularly point out what is being determined.
The limitations render the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and are rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons given above regarding claim 1.
Claim 11 recites limitations similar to the ones recited above in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons given above regarding claim 1.
Claims 12-20 are dependent on claim 11 and are rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons given above regarding claim 11.
The following prior art rejection is based on the best possible interpretation of the claim language in light of the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
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.
V. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-12, 14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et al. (US 2013/0143483 Aa) in view of Song et al. (US 2010/0150034 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Gore teaches a signal forwarding method, applied to a first device (repeater) operating as a repeater, in which the first device is used to amplify cellular communication signals between a second device (base station) and a third device (mobile device) in a network (see paragraphs [0020] & [0028] and Fig. 2 & Fig. 3, A remote signal from a base station is intended for a mobile station. Repeater with a gain G is configured to repeat a signal received from base station and amplify and transmit the repeated signal to the mobile device. Repeater includes circuitry for amplifying and transmitting signals received from the base station. This reads on signal forwarding method, applied to a first device in which the first device is used to amplify cellular communication signals between a second device and a third device in a network), the method comprising: determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded (see paragraph [0020], The repeater receives the remote cellular signal s(t) from the base station as an input signal. The repeater sends a repeated cellular signal to a third device. This reads on determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded because the repeater determines to forward the cellular signals); utilizing, by the first device, a gain of the first device to amplify the determined signals and forwarding the amplified signals (see paragraph [0020] and Fig. 2, A remote signal from a base station is intended for a mobile station. Repeater with a gain G is configured to repeat a signal received from base station and amplify and transmit the repeated signal to the mobile device. Repeater includes circuitry for amplifying and transmitting signals received from the base station. This reads on utilizing a gain of the first device to amplify the determined signals and forwarding the amplified signals).
Gore does not teach a plurality of third devices and determining which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network.
Song teaches a plurality of third devices (see paragraph [0025] and Fig. 1, plurality of terminals 10-1 to 10-N reads on plurality of third devices) and determining which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network (see abstract and claim 1, The base station selectively transmits a plurality of data stream signals to the wireless repeater and at least one wireless repeater repeats the data stream to signals selectively transmitted from the base station to terminals. This reads on determining which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Gore adapt to include plurality of third devices and determining which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network because this would allow for an efficient and well-known mechanism for achieving multiple access for terminals belonging to a repeater area (see Song, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 2 Song teaches the signals corresponding to the third device that is directly served by the first device are determined to be forwarded, and the signals corresponding to the third device that is not directly served by the first device are removed (see abstract; paragraph [0060]; and claim 1, The base station selects the terminals at each repeater that a plurality of data is to be transmitted to. The base station selectively transmits the plurality of data stream signals to the wireless repeater and at least one wireless repeater repeats the data stream to signals selectively transmitted from the base station to terminals. This reads on signals corresponding to the third device that is directly served by the first device are determined to be forwarded, and the signals corresponding to the third device that is not directly served by the first device are removed).
Regarding claim 4 Song teaches obtaining required information of repeating signal selectivity transmitted from the network; and determining which part of the received signals are to be forwarded, based on the obtained required information (see abstract; paragraph [0060]; and claim 1, The base station selects the terminals at each repeater that a plurality of data is to be transmitted to. The base station selectively transmits the plurality of data stream signals to the wireless repeater and at least one wireless repeater repeats the data stream to signals selectively transmitted from the base station to terminals. This reads on obtaining required information of repeating signal selectivity transmitted from the network; and determining which part of the received signals are to be forwarded, based on the obtained required information).
Regarding claim 6 Gore teaches utilizing a resource block repeater gain (RBRG) to amplify resource blocks allocated to the third device served by the first device (see paragraph [0020], A repeater with Gain G is configured to repeat a signal received from the base station and amplify and transmit the repeated signal to the mobile device using forward link circuitry for amplifying and transmitting signals. This reads on utilizing a resource block repeater gain (RBRG) to amplify resource blocks allocated to the third device served by the first device).
Regarding claim 7 Gore teaches utilizing designated RBRG received from the second device to amplify the resource blocks (see paragraph [0020], A repeater with Gain G is configured to repeat a signal received from the base station and amplify and transmit the repeated signal to the mobile device. This reads on utilizing designated RBRG received from the second device to amplify the resource blocks)
Regarding claim 11 Gore teaches a first device (repeater) operating as a repeater and used to amplify cellular communication signals between a second device (base station) and a third device (mobile device) in a network (see paragraphs [0020] & [0028] and Fig. 2 & fig. 3, A remote signal from a base station is intended for a mobile station. Repeater with a gain G is configured to repeat a signal received from base station and amplify and transmit the repeated signal to the mobile device. Repeater includes circuitry for amplifying and transmitting signals received from the base station. This reads a first device, used to amplify cellular communication signals between a second device and a plurality of third devices in a network) the first device comprising: a Rx circuit (315, Fig. 6); a Tx circuit (320, Fig. 6); and a controller (337, Fig. 6) of the first device, coupled to the Rx circuit and the Tx circuit (see paragraphs [0035] – [0038] & Fig. 6), the controller being configured to: determine which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded (see paragraph [0020], The repeater receives the remote cellular signal s(t) from the base station as an input signal. The repeater sends a repeated cellular signal to a third device. This reads on determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded because the repeater determines to forward the cellular signals); utilize a gain of the first device to amplify the determined signals and forwarding the amplified signals (see paragraph [0020] and Fig. 2, A remote signal from a base station is intended for a mobile station. Repeater with a gain G is configured to repeat a signal received from base station and amplify and transmit the repeated signal to the mobile device. Repeater includes circuitry for amplifying and transmitting signals received from the base station. This reads on utilizing a gain of the first device to amplify the determined signals and forwarding the amplified signals).
Gore does not teach a plurality of third devices and determine which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network.
Song teaches a plurality of third devices (see paragraph [0025] and Fig. 1, plurality of terminals 10-1 to 10-N reads on plurality of third devices) and determine which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network (see abstract and claim 1, The base station selectively transmits a plurality of data stream signals to the wireless repeater and at least one wireless repeater repeats the data stream to signals selectively transmitted from the base station to terminals. This reads on determine which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Gore adapt to include plurality of third devices and determine which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network because this would allow for an efficient and well-known mechanism for achieving multiple access for terminals belonging to a repeater area (see Song, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 12 Gore and Song teach limitations as recited in claim 2 and therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons give above.
Regarding claim 14 Gore and Song teach limitations as recited in claim 4 and therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons give above.
Regarding claim 16 Gore and Song teach limitations as recited in claim 6 and therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons give above.
Regarding claim 17 Gore and Song teach limitations as recited in claim 7 and therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons give above.
Regarding claim 20 Gore teaches A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising a plurality of instructions, when executed by a machine, the instructions cause the machine to perform the signal forwarding method according to claim 1 (see paragraphs [0042] – [0043]).
VI. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et al. (US 2013/0143483 Aa) in view of Song et al. (US 2010/0150034 A1) and Islam et al. (US 2022/0369121 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Gore and Song teach the method according to claim 1 except for wherein the received signals are forwarded in at least one of a partial frequency domain, a partial time domain and a partial spatial domain.
Islam teaches the received signals are forwarded in at least one of a partial frequency domain, a partial time domain and a partial spatial domain (see paragraph [0073], A received communication may be relayed using a different time resource, a different frequency resource, and/or a different spatial resource to transmit the communication as compared to the resource in which the communication was received. This reads on signals are forwarded in at least one of a partial frequency domain, a partial time domain and a partial spatial domain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Gore and Song combination adapt to include wherein the received signals are forwarded in at least one of a partial frequency domain, a partial time domain and a partial spatial domain because this would allow for a well-known mechanism for relaying signals to a terminal device (see Islam, paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 13 Gore, Song, and Islam teach limitations as recited in claim 3 and therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons give above.
VII. Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et al. (US 2013/0143483 Aa) in view of Song et al. (US 2010/0150034 A1) and Luo et al. (US 11,658,732 B1).
Regarding claim 9 Gore and Song teach the method according to claim 6 except for wherein the first device is operated at different RBRGs for the resource block.
Luo teaches wherein the first device is operated at different RBRGs for the resource block (see col. 20, lines 49-67, For example, a repeater may set one amplification parameter to have a much higher maximum gain limit than another amplification parameter. This reads on wherein the first device is operated at different RBRGs for the resource block).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the repeater gain of the Gore and Song combination adapt to include wherein the first device is operated at different RBRGs for the resource block because it optimizing the setting of amplification parameters of the repeater may result in improved performance for the repeater (see Luo, col. 21, lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 10 Gore teaches wherein the weaker the signals of the third device, the greater the RBRG is (see paragraph [0020], The repeater includes reverse link circuitry for amplifying and transmitting signals from mobile device back to base station. At the repeater the remote signal (from the mobile device) is received as an input signal and the remote signal is repeated as a repeated amplified signal. Ideally the gain G for the signal sent back to the back to the base station would be large. This reads on wherein the weaker the signals of the third device, the greater the RBRG).
Regarding claim 19 Gore, Song, and Luo teach limitations as recited in claim 9 and therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons give above.
Response to Arguments
VIII. Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 11 applicant argues that Gore and Song do not teach “determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network” because Gore and Song do not explicitly assign the selection function to the repeater, under network control, such that the repeater makes an internal determination regarding which portions of the received cellular signals should be forwarded.
The examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ assign the selection function to the repeater, under network control, such that the repeater makes an internal determination regarding which portions of the received cellular signals should be forwarded”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Please see the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Gore and Song teach the claimed “determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network” under the best possible interpretation of the claim language in light of the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Gore teaches determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded (see paragraph [0020]). The repeater receives the remote cellular signal s(t) from the base station as an input signal. The repeater sends a repeated cellular signal to a third device. This reads on determining, by the first device, which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded because the repeater determines to forward the cellular signals.
Song teaches determining which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network (see abstract and claim 1). The base station selectively transmits a plurality of data stream signals to the wireless repeater and at least one wireless repeater repeats the data stream to signals selectively transmitted from the base station to terminals. This reads on determining which part of received signals, which are the cellular communication signals, are to be forwarded, according to a control of the network.
Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 and claim 11 will remain.
Regarding claim 3 and claim 13 applicant argues that Islam does not teach “wherein the received signals are forwarded in at least one of a partial frequency domain, a partial time domain, and a partial spatial domain” because Islam does not explicitly state that the repeater forwards only a subset (e.g. some subcarriers, some time symbols/slots, and/or some spatial components/layers) of the received signals.
The examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ the repeater forwards only a subset (e.g. some subcarriers, some time symbols/slots, and/or some spatial components/layers) of the received signals d”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Islam teaches the received signals are forwarded in at least one of a partial frequency domain, a partial time domain and a partial spatial domain (see paragraph [0073]). A received communication may be relayed using a different time resource, a different frequency resource, and/or a different spatial resource to transmit the communication as compared to the resource in which the communication was received. This reads on signals are forwarded in at least one of a partial frequency domain, a partial time domain and a partial spatial domain because part of the resource is used to forward the signal.
Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 and claim 13 will remain.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 19 applicant argues that Luo does not teach “wherein the first device is operated at different RBRGs for the resource block”.
The examiner disagrees.
Luo teaches wherein the first device is operated at different RBRGs for the resource block (see col. 20, lines 49-67). For example, a repeater may set one amplification parameter to have a much higher maximum gain limit than another amplification parameter. This reads on wherein the first device is operated at different RBRGs for the resource block because different gain values are assigned to different communication paths.
Gore teaches wherein the weaker the signals of the third device, the greater the RBRG is (see paragraph [0020]). The repeater includes reverse link circuitry for amplifying and transmitting signals from mobile device back to base station. At the repeater the remote signal (from the mobile device) is received as an input signal and the remote signal is repeated as a repeated amplified signal. Ideally the gain G for the signal sent back to the back to the base station would be large. This reads on wherein the weaker the signals of the third device, the greater the RBRG because a weak signal coming in requires a greater gain going out.
Conclusion
IX. 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 J MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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 J MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
February 17, 2026