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 .
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 8/24/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 6, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues that Ishii is directed towards Layer-2/Layer-3 while the instant application is directed towards Layer-1, and thus Abedini in view of Ishii does not teach the features of the instant claim. Examiner respectfully 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., Layer-1) 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). Furthermore, paragraph 190 of Abedini discloses this feature.
Applicant also argues that Ishii fails to disclose establishing a connection to receive control information for directing an amplify-and-forward operation, and thus that Abedini in view of Ishii do not disclose all the features of the claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Abedini discloses the cited features in paragraphs 208 and 250.
Applicant also argues that there is no motivation to combine Abedini and Ishii. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, paragraph 101 of Ishii discloses the usage of separate barred information for IAB-nodes and normal UEs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the usage of different control information depending on the types of devices that the control information is being used for allows for finer tuning the control information for the device type. It thus follows that when such a scheme is implemented, that the control information that is not targeted towards a certain device, would be ignored by that device. Thus, it would be obvious to combine Abedini and Ishii.
Thus, Abedini in view of Ishii do disclose all the features of the instant claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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: receiving, by a first wireless terminal access restriction information broadcast from a network node, the access restriction information configured to restrict access from a 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.”)
“the first wireless terminal being configured to control a network controlled repeater configured to relay wireless communication between the network node and the second wireless terminal according to control information; establishing, by the first wireless terminal, a wireless connection to the 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.”)
“…receiving, by the first wireless terminal, the control information from the network node via the established wireless connection; and controlling, by the first wireless terminal, the network controlled repeater to amplify and forward the wireless communication between the network node and the second wireless terminal based on the received control information.” ([¶ 0208]: “In some aspects, the amplifier 1310 may have variable gain control. In some examples, the level of amplification of the amplifier 1310 may be controlled by the baseband processor 1312 (e.g., under the direction of the network access node).”;[¶ 0350]: “The control may afford the smart repeater device with “side control information,” which facilitates the dynamic or semi-static configuration of the smart repeater device with, for example, beamforming information, power control information”)
Abedini does not explicitly disclose “ignoring the access restriction information.”
However, Ishii discloses the missing feature “ignoring 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 and 6-8 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights