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 Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 14 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
By the amendment filed 14 July 2026, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-13 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 now pending.
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over R2-2213061 (“ZTE”) in view of Rugeland et al. (US 2022/0150768 A1), and further in view of Fujishiro et al. (US 2025/0184983 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ZTE discloses “[a] method performed by a network-controlled repeater (NCR) node which comprises an NCR-forward (NCR-Fwd) and an NCR-mobile termination (NCR-MT) in a communication system, the method comprising:” an NCR node having an NCR-MT and an NCR-Fwd (Proposal 0).
ZTE discloses “performing, by the NCR-Fwd, amplifying and forwarding signals between a terminal and a base station based on first control information, the first control information being received by the NCR-MT from the base station;” wherein the NCR-Fwd forwards signals under side control information received from the gNB by the NCR-MT (Proposal 3).
ZTE discloses “receiving, by the NCR-MT, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) release message;” in its discussion of normal RRC release of the NCR-MT and NCR-Fwd operation following that release (Proposal 3).
ZTE discloses “performing cell reselection by the NCR-MT in the RRC inactive state;” wherein the NCR-MT supports cell reselection and RRM measurements in RRC_INACTIVE (Proposal 5).
ZTE does not expressly disclose “in case that the RRC release message includes information on a suspend configuration, transitioning to an RRC inactive state from an RRC connected state;” However, Rugeland discloses that the RRC message transitioning a UE from RRC_CONNECTED to RRC_INACTIVE is an RRCRelease message with suspendConfig ([0178]). It would have been obvious to use that disclosed RRC release procedure to implement ZTE’s transition of the NCR-MT to RRC_INACTIVE following normal RRC release.
ZTE and Rugeland do not expressly disclose “in case that the NCR-MT reselects a cell other than a last serving cell of the base station, indicating, by the NCR-MT, to the NCR-Fwd, to cease the signal forwarding.” However, Fujishiro discloses that the NCR-MT controls the NCR-Fwd ([0187]), identifies being connected to a cell other than the current serving cell as a condition indicating failure of the control link ([0193]–[0200]), and has the NCR-MT stop the NCR-Fwd’s relay operation upon detecting that condition ([0201]). Fujishiro explains that uncontrolled forwarding can cause interference ([0188]).
It would have been obvious to apply Fujishiro’s stop control when ZTE’s NCR-MT reselects a cell other than the last serving cell. ZTE permits the NCR-Fwd to continue operating under the last gNB configuration while the NCR-MT is inactive (Proposal 3). Having the NCR-MT direct the NCR-Fwd to cease forwarding after reselection to another cell prevents continued forwarding under control associated with the former cell and addresses Fujishiro’s identified interference concern. Fujishiro provisional application 63/395,931, filed August 8, 2022, supports the relied-upon different-cell condition and stop operation in provisional paragraphs [0153] and [0158]–[0159].
Claim 8 recites an NCR node configured to perform the corresponding operations and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Regarding claim 8’s additional “a transceiver; and a controller” recitation, Fujishiro discloses an NCR-MT having a receiver, transmitter, and controller, with the controller controlling the NCR-Fwd through an interface (Fig. 5 and accompanying description). The receiver and transmitter together provide the recited transceiver.
Claims 2–7 and 9–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in view of Rugeland and Fujishiro, and further in view of Jung (US 2020/0305039 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of ZTE, Rugeland, and Fujishiro discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Regarding “in case that the RRC release message does not include the information on the suspend configuration, transitioning to an RRC idle state from the RRC connected state;” Jung discloses that an RRCRelease without suspendConfig causes a UE in RRC_CONNECTED to enter RRC_IDLE ([0174]). Regarding “indicating, by the NCR-MT, to the NCR-Fwd, to cease the signal forwarding, based on the NCR-MT transitioning to the RRC idle state,” Fujishiro identifies transition to RRC_IDLE as a condition for stopping the NCR-Fwd’s relay operation ([0193]–[0201]). It would have been obvious to apply that stop control when Jung’s release procedure moves ZTE’s NCR-MT to RRC_IDLE, to avoid uncontrolled forwarding and interference. patents.google.com
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding “transmitting, by the NCR-MT, to a base station associated with the cell, an RRC resume request message based on the cell being reselected;” Rugeland discloses an RRCResumeRequest following reselection outside the configured notification area ([0132]), and Jung discloses transmitting an RRCResumeRequest to a gNB from RRC_INACTIVE ([0165], Fig. 1F). Regarding “receiving, by the NCR-MT, from the base station associated with the cell, an RRC resume message, as a response to the RRC resume request message,” Jung discloses the responsive RRCResume ([0165], Fig. 1F). Using that exchange after reselection would restore the NCR-MT’s connection and permit renewed network control.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses the method of claim 3. Regarding “wherein the RRC resume request message includes information indicating that the NCR node requests a connection to the base station associated with the cell,” Jung discloses resumeCause in the RRCResumeRequest ([0165]); Rugeland discloses ranAreaUpdate as the cause when reselection takes the UE outside its notification area ([0132]). Including that cause conveys why the NCR-MT seeks connection resumption with the base station of the reselected cell.
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the method of claim 3. Regarding “receiving, by the NCR-MT, from the base station associated with the cell, second control information to control an amplifying and forwarding operation for signals associated with the cell; and applying, by the NCR-Fwd, the second control information,” Fujishiro discloses renewed gNB configuration and control of the NCR after the NCR-Fwd has stopped ([0203]). Fujishiro also discloses the NCR-MT receiving gNB control signaling and controlling the NCR-Fwd accordingly (Fig. 5 and accompanying description). After Jung’s resumption with the base station of the reselected cell, receiving and applying that base station’s control information would permit forwarding for its cell under renewed network control.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses the method of claim 5. Regarding “wherein the second control information includes at least one of information on a beam used for the signal forwarding associated with the last serving cell, information on a frequency of the cell, or information on subcarrier spacing,” Fujishiro discloses NCR control information designating the center frequency of a radio signal to be forwarded ([0090]). Specifying the frequency of the reselected cell in the renewed control information meets the claimed “information on a frequency of the cell” alternative.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the method of claim 5 as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose “forwarding, by the NCR-Fwd, a signal associated with the last serving cell based on the first control information and the signal associated with the cell based on the second control information.” ZTE states that forwarding cells other than the cell to which the NCR-MT is connected is an implementation option (Proposal 0, Note). Fujishiro discloses NCR control information designating multiple frequencies of signals to be relayed by the NCR-Fwd ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to implement ZTE’s option by having the NCR-Fwd forward signals associated with the last serving cell under the first control information and signals associated with the reselected cell under the second control information received as set forth for claim 5. Applying the respective control information to each cell would allow the NCR-Fwd to provide coverage for both cells. Claim 1’s cessation of forwarding upon reselection can occur before forwarding resumes under the applicable control information.
Claims 9-14 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 2-7, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
