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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the cited prior arts in the previous office action discloses the argued limitation.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that KOVACS and FRENNE fail to disclose the limitation, “predict a second beam based in part one a network operating condition; and communicate with the UE via the second beam”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with above outstanding argument. The Examiner respectfully submits that KOVACS describes that the relay UE 414 selects or predicts the beams such as S0 and S1 through the inference is also applying or performed by the Target UE 416. However, the prediction or selection of the beams is performed at the relay UE 414 (paragraph fig. 9; [0104]). Paragraph [0028] illustrates that the beam prediction or section is performed based on measured reference signals. However, KOVACS does not disclose a communicating with the UE via the select (second) beam. FRENNE discloses that a beam is selected based on measurement metric such as RSRP, RSRQ, CQI, RSSI, and SINR, and the network device, as relay device, communicates the predicted beam with the wireless device 22 (page 3-4, 28-31, and so on).
The Applicant further argue that modifying KOVACS such that the relay UE, and not the target UE, communicates via predicted beam eliminate the need for the target UE altogether, and therefore would render KOVACS unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. However, FRENNE discloses the network node 16 is also a relay device (page 26-27), and it predicts the beam and communicates the predicted beam with a wireless device 22. Therefore, there is no change of intended purpose of KOVACS. Second, according to the claim, the prediction of a second beam is performed at the repeater device and communicates with the UE.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the arguments are not persuasive, and the claims are not patentable in view of the cited prior arts.
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, 4-9, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs et al. (US 2024/0196187 A1) in view of Frenne (WO 2023/153988 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), the one or more processors, to cause the repeater device to communicate with the UE (e.g. figs. 4-5, 7; paragraph [0072]-[0079]; [0083]-[0088]; and so on, illustrating UE 414 communicates with UE such as 416), are further configured to cause the repeater device (414) to: 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 communication is using a first beam, communicate with the UE via the second beam.
Frenne teaches the communication is using a first beam (page 2, line 17-page 3, line 4; page 28, lines 1-11; and so on), communicate with the UE via the second beam (page 30, lines 17-25; 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 communication is using a first beam, communicate with the UE via the second beam as taught by Frenne into Kovacs in order to improve resource utilization.
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 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.
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]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs in view of Frenne, 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 Frenne, 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 Frenne, 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
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 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