CTNF 18/406,070 CTNF 93216 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments, on page 7, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, on page 7, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, on page 8, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ishii (US 20220029694 A1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini (US 20220053433 A1) in view of Ishii (US 20220029694 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Abedini discloses: “A communication control method comprising: establishing, by a first wireless terminal, a wireless connection to a network node,” ([¶ 0072]: “Smart repeater devices can acquire side control information via a control-interface to a network access node (e.g., scheduling entity, an eNode B (eNB), a gNode B (gNB), a base station). However, this requires the smart repeater device to establish a communication link (e.g., a radio resource control (RRC) connection) with the network access node. The establishment of the RRC connection may be similar to the way a user equipment (UE) establishes an RRC connection with a network access node.”) “the first wireless terminal being configured to control a network controlled repeater configured to relay wireless communication between the network node and a second wireless terminal; and” ([¶ 0027]: “Subsequently, the network access node may transmit UE-data 1614 that is received by the repeater device a time later (as represented by UE-data 1616). The repeater device may forward the UE-data to the UE and the UE-data may be received at UE a short time later (as represented by UE-data 1618).”) “receiving, by the first wireless terminal, access restriction information broadcast from the network node, the access restriction information configured to restrict an access from the second wireless terminal to the network node…” ([¶ 0368]: “Some parameters carried by a MIB, such as MIB 3108a, 3108b may include, for example, the parameter “cellBarred,” which may be used to inform a repeater device, like repeater device 3104, that a network access node, like network access node 3102, has barred one or more wireless communication devices (e.g., like UE 3106) from camping on a cell associated with the MIB. The cellBarred parameter may indicate to the repeater device 3104 that one or more circuits of the repeater device 3104 may be configured so as to not convey radio frequency (RF) traffic received at the repeater device 3104 from the one or more wireless communication devices (e.g., from UE 3106) in an uplink resource associated with the cell.”) Abedini does not explicitly disclose “and ignoring, by the first wireless terminal, the access restriction information so that the first wireless terminal can access the network node without restriction by the access restriction information.” However, Ishii discloses the missing feature “ignoring, by the first wireless terminal, the access restriction information so that the first wireless terminal can access the network node without restriction by the access restriction information.” ([¶ 0101]: “For example, in a case that the terminal type is a relay node, the relay node mobile termination unit 60 of the IAB-node 24 may ignore cellBarred in MIB, which is applicable only to UEs (not to IAB-nodes) and may use cellBarredIAB instead to determine the cell status (barred or not barred).”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Abedini and Ishii, to modify the technique as disclosed by Abedini , to ignore broadcasted restriction information as disclosed by Ishii . The motivation for doing so is that it allows avoidance of unnecessarily applied restrictions, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Abedini with Ishii to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim. Regarding claim 3, Abedini in view of Ishii discloses all the features of the parent claim. Abedini further discloses “transmitting, by the first wireless terminal to the network node, repeater control wireless terminal information indicating that the first wireless terminal itself is a repeater control wireless terminal, when the first wireless terminal establishes the wireless connection to the network node, wherein the repeater control wireless terminal information is included in a Msg 5 for a random access procedure.” ([¶ 0436]: “Referring again to the sub-options of Option A.1, a second sub-option (Alt a.1.2) may involve adding a new indication (e.g., “smart-repeater device-node indication”) in an RRCSetupComplete message (Msg5). As indicated at 3916 of FIG. 39, the Msg5 may include a repeater device indication (Rptrind).”) Claims 4-8 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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. /SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/406,070 Page 2 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/406,070 Page 3 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/406,070 Page 4 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/406,070 Page 5 Art Unit: 2412
Prosecution Insights