DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant Office Action is in response to communication filed on 4/21/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13 and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are the base independent claims.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Regarding claim 1, Applicant files arguments with respect to the amendment in the Remark.
--In response, new grounds of rejection are made by the combination of Zhang in view of Hao based on the amended claim limitations. Upon further consideration, Zhang still applies to a portion of the independent claims because the amendment does not change the scope of this portion. The rest of the arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference being used in the current rejection.
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 16, because the patent scopes of the limitations in the independent claims are the same as in claim 1, therefore the claims are rejected based on the same reason given to claim 1 mutatis mutandis.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zheng et al (US 2022/0007297) in view of Hao et al (WO 2020/186401, citation is based on its English translation from EPO).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Zhang discloses a first node (par 36; e.g. child-IAB device) and a related method applied to the first node comprising an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, the IAB node comprising:
at least one processor (par 19; processor) configured to:
determine power control assistance information of the IAB node (par 47; e.g. the child-IAB device determines whether to adjust the transmit power of the P-IAB device); and
transmit, via a transmitter, the power control assistance information to a parent node of the IAB node, to assist the parent node of the IAB (par 54; e.g. receiving the power control parameter reported by the receiving device),
wherein the power control assistance information comprises an expected transmit power spectral density (par 40, par 60-63; e.g. power spectral density).
The reference discloses a transmission power control feature. However, it does not specifically disclose a control to the uplink transmission, including:
to control the transmission power of the IAB node on an uplink transmission on a link between the IAB node and the parent node of the IAB node, wherein the transmit power spectral density indicating a power control parameter expected to be used by a mobile termination (MT) of the IAB node.
Nonetheless, the modification is taught by Hao, since Hao discloses:
to control the transmission power of the IAB node on an uplink transmission on a link between the IAB node and the parent node of the IAB node (page 8, [0015]-[0016]; e.g. the IAB node device determines the transmit power of the parent link; it is understood the link is an uplink controlled by the upper level IAB or base station; also see page 3, [0003]), wherein the transmit power spectral density indicating a power control parameter expected to be used by a mobile termination (MT) of the IAB node (page 13, [0026]; e.g. the constraint information including the sum of the maximum total power of the parent link and child link supported by the IAB node device, and the difference between the maximum power spectral density (PSD) of the parent link and child link supported by the IAB node device; and to receive power control parameters configured by the base station according to the constraint information).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Hao with the electronic system of Zhang. One is motivated as such to avoid inference between IAB node devices and interference from IAB node devices to base stations or UEs (Hao, [0004]).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Zhang discloses a parent node (par 36; e.g. parent-IAB device) of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node and a related method applied to the parent node, comprising:
at least one processor (par 18; processor) configured to:
receive, via a receiver from the IAB node, power control assistance information of the IAB node (par 54; e.g. receiving the power control parameter reported by the receiving device),
wherein the power control assistance information is determined by the IAB node and assists the parent node of the IAB node (par 47; e.g. the child-IAB device determines whether to adjust the transmit power of the P-IAB device), and comprises an expected transmit power spectral density (par 40, par 60-63; e.g. power spectral density).
The reference discloses a transmission power control feature. However, it does not specifically disclose a control to the uplink transmission, including:
to control the transmission power of the IAB node on an uplink transmission on a link between the IAB node and the parent node of the IAB node, wherein the transmit power spectral density indicating a power control parameter expected to be used by a mobile termination (MT) of the IAB node.
Nonetheless, the modification is taught by Hao, since Hao discloses:
to control the transmission power of the IAB node on an uplink transmission on a link between the IAB node and the parent node of the IAB node (page 8, [0015]-[0016]; e.g. the IAB node device determines the transmit power of the parent link; it is understood the link is an uplink controlled by the upper level IAB or base station; also see page 3, [0003]), wherein the transmit power spectral density indicating a power control parameter expected to be used by a mobile termination (MT) of the IAB node (page 13, [0026]; e.g. the constraint information including the sum of the maximum total power of the parent link and child link supported by the IAB node device, and the difference between the maximum power spectral density (PSD) of the parent link and child link supported by the IAB node device; and to receive power control parameters configured by the base station according to the constraint information).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Hao with the electronic system of Zhang. One is motivated as such to avoid inference between IAB node devices and interference from IAB node devices to base stations or UEs (Hao, [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses:
wherein the expected transmit power spectral density comprises an expected transmit power range per frequency unit (par 64; e.g. energies per resource element).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses:
one multiplexing manner corresponds to the power control assistance information; or (examining note: since the claim shows a limitation in an alternative form, the prior art may teach either or both limitations, and this notice applies to subsequent occurrences of claim limitations that are in the alternative form) one time domain resource corresponds to the power control assistance information (par 6; e.g. with the SDM or FDM transmission mode, the Child-IAB device may simultaneously receive signals from the UE and the upper-level Child-IAB device).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses:
wherein the one multiplexing manner comprises the first node performing:
MT transmission and distributed unit (DU) transmission simultaneously; or
MT reception and DU reception simultaneously; or
MT reception and DU transmission simultaneously; or
MT transmission and DU reception simultaneously (par 6; e.g. with the SDM or FDM transmission mode, the Child-IAB device may simultaneously receive signals from the UE and the upper-level Child-IAB device).
Regarding claims 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15 and 17-20, Zhang also discloses the subject matter as same as the above mapping of claims 2-3 and 5.
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 YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate 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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights