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. 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 , 9 , and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooli et al. (US 2021/0344467) in view of Sfar et al. (US Patent #8,917,649). Regarding claim s 1 , 9, and 15 , Hooli teaches a coverage extension ( Paragraph 0028…. on higher frequency bands the coverage will be an issue and specific capabilities are needed for New Radio to enable easy coverage extension with minimized/none requirements for network (re-)planning in a fast and cost-efficient manner) method in a terahertz (THz) region using cooperative communication performed by a computer device ( Paragraph 0050…cooperative relay communication ) , the coverage extension method comprising: setting, by an access point (AP) in a downlink system that supports a plurality of user equipments (UEs), a UE that requires assistance ( Paragraphs 0051-0053, especially Para graph 0051….. FIG. 3 illustrates a process according to an embodiment for configuring one or more terminal devices to perform relaying so that high reliability with low latency may be achieved…..Paragraph 0053….the access node selects, in block 301, one or more terminal devices connected to the access node for relaying a signal (or a transport block) from the source terminal device to the access node based at least on radio link measurements (or channel measurements), e.g., between terminal devices and/or terminal devices and the access node ) due to a blocked line-of-sight ( LoS ) link as a destination UE and setting a remaining UE as a medium UE among the plurality of UEs ( Paragraphs 0048…. While some of the terminal devices 211, 215, 216, 217, 218 are able to connect directly to one of the access nodes 201, 202, other terminal devices 212, 213, 214, 219 require two or more “hops” (i.e., communicating a packet by two or more sequential transmissions) due to, for example, the line-of-sight path to the access node 201, 202 being blocked by an obstacle or interference caused by a local signal source. For the latter set of terminal devices, one or more other terminal devices in the communications system act as relay nodes ) . Hooli further in paragraph [0066] teaches the terminal device initially receives, in block 401, the configuration information from an access node. Specifically, the configuration information may be configuration information enabling relaying packets from a particular source terminal device to a target network node but does not specifically teach transmitting, by the AP, data to the medium UE; and cooperatively transmitting, by the medium UE, data to the destination UE. However, in related art, Sfar teaches transmitting, by the AP, data to the medium UE; and cooperatively transmitting, by the medium UE, data to the destination UE ( Col 6, lines 1-11, … ….. the WTRU may receive signals only from the RS 160, but not directly from the BS 195. In other words, the WTRU 110 is in a deeply shadowed region of the BS coverage or simply in a BS coverage hole……. the forwarding relay 160 receives the DL data from the BS 195 and simply forwards it to the WTRU 150 and vice versa for UL data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA) to use Sfar’s teaching about transmitting, by the AP, data to the medium UE; and cooperatively transmitting, by the medium UE, data to the destination UE with Hooli’s invention in order to receive voice and data services from wireless service provider. Claim s 2, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooli et al. (US 2021/0344467) in view of Sfar et al. (US Patent #8,917,649) in view of Liang (US 2013/0303227) , and further in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0014506). Regarding claims 2 , 10, and 16 , the combination of Hooli and Sfar fail to teach t he coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the medium UE comprises transmitting, by the AP, data requested by the destination UE and data requested by the medium UE to the medium UE. However, in related art, Liang teaches the coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the medium UE comprises transmitting, by the AP, data requested by the destination UE (Paragraphs [0065 and 0090, especially paragraph [0090] teaches …. When the power is turned on, the wireless device 20 transmits data requesting authentication of the ID to the base station 10 through the relay station 60, and makes a request for authentication (operation S1). The communicator 3 of the base station 10 transmits the group information to the wireless device 20 through the relay station 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA) to use Liang’s teaching about wherein the transmitting of the data to the medium UE comprises transmitting, by the AP, data requested by the destination UE with Hooli’s and Sfar’s invention in order to obtain data through relay apparatus. The combination of Hooli , Sfar , and Liang fail to teach transmitting, by the AP, data requested by the medium UE to the medium UE. However, in related art, Li teaches transmitting, by the AP, data requested by the medium UE to the medium UE (Paragraphs [ 0041, 0074 - 0075 ] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA) to use Li’s teaching about transmitting, by the AP, data requested by the medium UE to the medium UE with Hooli’s , Sfar’s , and Liang’s invention in order to receive requested data. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooli et al. (US 2021/0344467) in view of Sfar et al. (US Patent #8,917,649), and further in view of Luz et al. (US 2010/0166098). Regarding claim 7 , the combination of Hooli and Sfar fail to teach the coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the destination UE comprises splitting a channel using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) to correspond to the channel. However, in related art, Luz teaches the coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the destination UE comprises splitting a channel using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) to correspond to the channel (Paragraph 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA) to use Luz’s teaching about wherein the transmitting of the data to the destination UE comprises splitting a channel using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) to correspond to the channel with Hooli’s and Sfar’s invention in order to able to transmit sub packets simultaneously. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooli et al. (US 2021/0344467) in view of Sfar et al. (US Patent #8,917,649), and further in view of Abeysekera et al. (US 201 5/0172012 ). Regarding claim 8 , the combination of Hooli and Sfar fail to teach the coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the destination UE comprises having a form of a multiple access channel. However, in related art , Abeysekera teaches the coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the destination UE comprises having a form of a multiple access channel (Paragraphs [0047 and 0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA) to use Abeysekera’s teaching about wherein the transmitting of the data to the destination UE comprises having a form of a multiple access channel with Hooli’s and Sfar’s invention in order to flexibility in assigning resources to a given terminal. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 -6 , 11 -14 , and 17 -20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 3 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the medium UE comprises: splitting, by the AP, data requested by the medium UE into private data and a portion of common data; generating, by the AP, common data that includes information of the plurality of UEs by combining portions of the split common data of the medium UEs; encoding, by the AP, the private data to a private stream and encoding the common data to a common stream; and precoding, by the AP, the private stream and the common stream and transmitting a signal to the medium UE. Regarding claim 5 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the medium UE comprises: splitting, by the AP, data requested by the medium UE without splitting data requested by the destination UE and transmitting the same signal to all the medium UEs based on the data requested by the destination UE and the data requested by the medium UE. Regarding claim 6 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the data to the medium UE comprises: splitting, by the AP, data requested by the destination UE and data requested by the medium UE and transmitting different signals to all the medium UEs based on the data requested by the destination UE and the data requested by the medium UE. Regarding claim 11 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension apparatus of claim 9, wherein the transmitter comprises: a data splitter configured to split data requested by the medium UE into private data and a portion of common data; a common data combiner configured to generate common data that includes information of the plurality of UEs by combining portions of the split common data of the medium UEs; an encoder configured to encode the private data to a private stream and to encode the common data to a common stream; and a precoder configured to precode the private stream and the common stream and to transmit a signal to the medium UE. Regarding claim 13 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension apparatus of claim 9, wherein the transmitter is configured to split data requested by the medium UE without splitting data requested by the destination UE and to transmit the same signal to all the medium UEs based on the data requested by the destination UE and the data requested by the medium UE. Regarding claim 14 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension apparatus of claim 9, wherein the transmitter is configured to split data requested by the destination UE and data requested by the medium UE and to transmit different signals to all the medium UEs based on the data requested by the destination UE and the data requested by the medium UE. Regarding claim 17 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension apparatus of claim 15, wherein the AP comprises: a data splitter configured to split data requested by the medium UE into private data and a portion of common data; a common data combiner configured to generate common data that includes information of the plurality of UEs by combining portions of the split common data of the medium UEs; an encoder configured to encode the private data to a private stream and to encode the common data to a common stream; and a precoder configured to precode the private stream and the common stream and to transmit a signal to the medium UE. Regarding claim 19 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension apparatus of claim 15, wherein the AP is configured to split data requested by the medium UE without splitting data requested by the destination UE and to transmit the same signal to all the medium UEs based on the data requested by the destination UE and the data requested by the medium UE. Regarding claim 20 , the prior art of record fails to teach the coverage extension apparatus of claim 15, wherein the AP is configured to split data requested by the destination UE and data requested by the medium UE and to transmit different signals to all the medium UEs based on the data requested by the destination UE and the data requested by the medium UE. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Makki et al. (US 2025/0158664), Paz et al. (US 2023/0239815), Takeda et al. (US 2022/0345983), Won et al. (US 2021/0329728), Tsutsui (US 2021/0250778), Lekutai (US Patent #10,993,120), Raghavan et al. (US 2021/0013960), Liao (US 2020/0344665), Rofougaran et al. (US 2020/0344739), Min et al. (US 2019/0116627), Li et al. (US 2019/0014606), Serizawa et al. (US 2018/0302837), Zhang (US Patent #10,039,081), Oh et al. (US 2018/0213473), Duschi et al. (US 2017/0134981), Li et al. (US 2016/0227518), Chang et al. (US Patent #9,397,744), Nie et al. (US Patent #8,792,367), Noh et al. (US 2014/0171094), Noh et al. (US Patent #9,532,296), Kwon et al. (US Patent #8,548,378), Miyatani (US Patent #8,488,653), Liu et al. (US Patent #8,478,189), Nam et al. (US 2011/0212684), Tan et al. (US Patent #7,853,204), Matsumura et al. (US 2009/0325622), Shen et al. (US 2009/0097433), Lee (US 2009/0017752), D’Amico et al. (US 2004/0032853), Furukawa et al. (US 2002/0024935), and Moriguchi et al. (US 2002/0007238). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8132 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Wesley Kim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7867 . 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. /DOMINIC E REGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132