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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot due to a new ground of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs et al. (US 2024/0196187 A1) in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 2024/0381117 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kovacs discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a repeater device (e.g. figs. 4 and 9), comprising: one or more memories (1306); and one or more processors (1304), coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the repeater device (414) to: communicate with a user equipment (UE) (416) by: relay an access link communication between the UE and a network node (e.g. figs. 2-5, 7, 9; paragraph [0005]; [0027]; [0042]-[0044]; [0065]-[0067]; [0069]-[0079]; [0083]-[0088]; and etc., illustrating the relay UE 414 relays an access link communication between the UE and network such as 410, 910 or 412); predict a second beam based at least on a network operating condition (fig. 9; paragraph [0028]; [0104], describing a second beam is predicted by the relay UE 414 to communicate with the UE, where predicting of the second beam is based on a network condition such as measurement metric, reference signal (RS), CSI or CSI-RS).
Kovacs doesn’t explicitly disclose the link communication is using a first beam, communicate with the UE via the second beam, and relaying, via the second beam, the access link communication between the UE and the network node.
Yoshioka teaches the link communication is using a first beam, communicate with the UE via the second beam (e.g. fig. 15; paragraph [0097]-[0099]), and relaying, via the second beam, the access link communication between the UE and the network node (e.g. figs. 15-16; paragraph [0099]-[0101]; [0106]-[0107]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the link communication is using a first beam, communicate with the UE via the second beam, and relaying, via the second beam, the access link communication between the UE and the network node as taught by Yoshioka into Kovacs in order to improve communication quality and reduce signal degradation.
Regarding claim 12 and 18, the claims include features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 2, 13, and 19, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device (414) to: obtain one or more measurement metrics that indicate the network operating condition (fig. 9; paragraph [0028]; [0104]); and predict the second beam using the one or more measurement metrics (fig. 9; paragraph [0028]; [0093]-[0094]; [0104]).
Regarding claim 4, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the repeater device to use the second beam, are configured to cause the repeater device to: adjust to using the second beam autonomously (paragraph [0103]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 8 and 15, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device to: receive an indication of the network operating condition (paragraph [0027]-[0028]; [0104]; [0052]; [0060]; [0114]; and so on); and select a prediction algorithm to use for predicting the second beam based at least in part on the network operating condition (paragraph [0028]; [0101]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 9 and 16, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device to: generate a measurement metric using a reference signal (RS) configuration (paragraph [0028]; [0104]); and predict the second beam using the measurement metric as an input to a prediction algorithm that is specific to the RS configuration and the measurement metric (paragraph [0028]; [0104]).
Claims 5-7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs et al. (US 2024/0196187 A1) in view of Yoshioka, and further in view of Frenne (WO 2023/153988 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the repeater device to obtain the one or more measurement metrics (paragraph [0028]; [0104]). However, the measurement metric, are configured to cause the repeater device to: generate the one or more measurement metrics using an uplink signal from the UE.
Frenne teaches the measurement metric, are configured to cause the repeater device to: generate the one or more measurement metrics using an uplink signal from the UE (page 30, lines 4-25; page 33, line 21-page 34, line 10; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the measurement metric, are configured to cause the repeater device to: generate the one or more measurement metrics using an uplink signal from the UE as taught by Frenne into Kovacs in order to improve resource utilization.
Regarding claim 6, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the repeater device to obtain the one or more measurement metrics (paragraph [0028]; [0104]). However, Kovacs doesn’t explicitly disclose the measurement metric are configured to cause the repeater device to: receive a channel state information report that indicates, as the network operating condition, a channel condition between the repeater device and the UE.
Frenne teaches the measurement metric are configured to cause the repeater device to: receive a channel state information report that indicates, as the network operating condition, a channel condition between the repeater device and the UE (page 30, lines 4-25; page 33, line 21-page 34, line 10; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the measurement metric are configured to cause the repeater device to: receive a channel state information report that indicates, as the network operating condition, a channel condition between the repeater device and the UE as taught by Frenne into Kovacs in order to improve resource utilization.
Regarding claim 7, 14, and 20, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device to: use the prediction algorithm to predict the second beam (paragraph [0028]; [0104]).
Kovacs doesn’t disclose receive an indication of a prediction algorithm.
Frenne teaches receive an indication of a prediction algorithm (e.g. page 43, line 3-page 44, line 13; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use receive an indication of a prediction algorithm as taught by Frenne into Kovacs in order to improve resource utilization and reduce delay.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs in view of Yoshioka, and further in view of Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (US 2023/0052328 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as applied above, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device (414) to: predict a second beam. However, Kovacs doesn’t disclose transmit an indication of the second beam to the network node; and receive an instruction to use the second beam to communicate with the UE.
Awoniyi-Oteri teaches transmit an indication of the second beam to the network node; and receive an instruction to use the second beam to communicate with the UE (figs. 3 and 6; paragraph [0083]-[0090]; [0118]-[0120]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use transmit an indication of the second beam to the network node; and receive an instruction to use the second beam to communicate with the UE as taught by Awoniyi-Oteri into Kovacs in order to improve efficiency and quality of communication.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs in view of Yoshioka, and further in view of Xiong et al. (US 2024/0098612 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kovacs discloses wherein the prediction algorithm is a first prediction algorithm that generates a beam prediction output based at least in part on the RS configuration and the measurement metric (paragraph [0028]; [0104]).
Kovacs doesn’t disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device to: use a second prediction algorithm to regulate a handover decision, the second prediction algorithm configured to generate a handover output based at least in part on using the RS configuration and the measurement metric as input.
Xiong teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device to: use a second prediction algorithm to regulate a handover decision, the second prediction algorithm configured to generate a handover output based at least in part on using the RS configuration and the measurement metric as input (paragraph [0115]-[0116]; [0282]-[0283]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device to: use a second prediction algorithm to regulate a handover decision, the second prediction algorithm configured to generate a handover output based at least in part on using the RS configuration and the measurement metric as input as taught by Xiong into Kovacs in order to decrease dropping of data or communication.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs in view of Yoshioka, and further in view of Caporal Del Barrio et al. (US 2023/0403049 A1).
Regarding claim 11 and 17, Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the repeater device to: generate a measurement metric (e.g. paragraph [0028]). Kovacs doesn’t disclose the measurement metric is using a first antenna array configuration; and predict an array configuration trigger condition using the measurement metric, the array configuration trigger condition indicating whether to use the first antenna array configuration or to switch to a second antenna array configuration.
Caporal Del Barrio teaches the measurement metric is using a first antenna array configuration (e.g. fig. 3; paragraph [0101]-[0108]; [0004]-[0010]; [0018]; [0079]-[0086]; and so on); and predict an array configuration trigger condition using the measurement metric, the array configuration trigger condition indicating whether to use the first antenna array configuration or to switch to a second antenna array configuration (paragraph [0087]-[0090]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the measurement metric is using a first antenna array configuration; and predict an array configuration trigger condition using the measurement metric, the array configuration trigger condition indicating whether to use the first antenna array configuration or to switch to a second antenna array configuration as input as taught by Caporal Del Barrio into Kovacs in order to decrease interference and congestion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights