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 Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 12/26/2025 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are partially persuasive. Thus, the objections to Claims other than what are set forth below have been withdrawn.
With regard to the double patenting rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 12/26/2025 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot. Although Applicant requested that the double patenting rejection be in abeyance pending a final disposition of the claims, the double patenting rejections have not been withdrawn and will be maintained until a terminal disclaimer is filed or amendments are made so that the claims can be patentably distinct from the reference claim(s).
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 12/26/2025 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 15 recites, “-- some combination --” (line 29). It is suggested to replace it with “-- a combination --” for more clarity. Claim 16 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/579,126 (hereinafter, “Ghan’126”)1 in view of “Enhancements for simultaneous operation of child and parent links” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e, October 26th - November 13th, 2020 (R1-2008859) (hereinafter, “ZTE”)2
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of the claims of Ghan’126 by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims, and the claims of this instant application are therefore and obvious variant thereof.
It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Regarding claim 1, Ghan’126 discloses, an apparatus for performing a network function [see claim 1, line 1], the apparatus [see claim 1, line 1] comprising:
at least one memory [see claim 1, line 4]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to [see claim 1, lines 5-6]:
receive, at a first wireless communication node, a control message from a second wireless communication node [see claim 1, lines 8-16], wherein the control message comprises a plurality of reference signal indices indicating quasi-collocation properties [see claim 1, lines 23-25].
Ghan’126 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but ZTE discloses, the control message comprises a plurality of reference signal indices indicating quasi-collocation properties according to whether a first communication by a first functional entity and a second communication by a second functional entity is restricted based at least in part on the first communication being simultaneous with the second communication [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node, so that these two links don’t interference each other; further see, TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario; note that the DL reception by MT of the IAB node and the UL reception by DU of the IAB node are restricted due to interferences (CLI) based on both receptions are performs simultaneous; and similar rationales can be derived from FIG. 2 its descriptions (i.e., UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU)]; and determine whether the second functional entity performs the second communication based in part on the control message [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node (i.e., IAB-DU) can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node (i.e., second reception), so that these two links don’t interference each other; note that similar rationales can be derived from FIG. 2 its descriptions (i.e., UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU)].
The above-mentioned features are well known/established in the telecommunication art as recited in 3GPP standard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide well-established standard of providing the above-mentioned well-known feature, as taught by ZTE in the system of Ghan’126, so that it would provide interoperability and compatibility between telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers, thereby providing users with easier and faster seamless transition regardless where the users are located in the country/world.
Regarding claim 2, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 discloses, wherein: an integrated access and backhaul central unit (IAB-CU) configures the first wireless communication node with a plurality of reference signals associated with the plurality of the reference signal indices [see claim 1, lines 8-25]; and the IAB-CU indicates information of the plurality of reference signals, the plurality of reference signal indices, or a combination thereof to the second wireless communication node [see claim 1, lines 8-25].
Regarding claim 3, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 discloses, wherein the first wireless communication node comprises an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node [see claim 1, lines 8-10] and the second wireless communication node comprises a parent node of the first wireless communication node [see claim 1, lines 14 (a parent node)].
Regarding claim 4, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 discloses, wherein the control message comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) message [see claim 5].
Regarding claim 5, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but ZTE discloses, wherein the quasi-collocation properties comprise a quasi-collocation with respect to a spatial receive (RX) parameter [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node (i.e., IAB-DU) can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node; note that the reception beam implicitly means a direction of the RX beam (i.e., spatial RX parameter)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by ZTE in the system of Ghan’126 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 discloses, wherein the first functional entity comprises an integrated access and backhaul mobile terminal (IAB-MT) [see claim 1, lines 21-22].
Regarding claim 7, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 discloses, wherein the second functional entity comprises an integrated access and backhaul distributed unit (IAB-DU) [see claim 1, lines 8-13].
Regarding claim 8, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 discloses, wherein the first wireless communication node comprises the first functional entity and the second functional entity [see claim 1, lines 8-13 and lines 21-22].
Regarding claim 9, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Although Ghan’126 discloses, wherein: the first communication comprises a first transmission, a first reception, or a combination thereof [see claim 1, lines 21-22], Ghan’126 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but ZTE discloses, the second communication comprises a second transmission, a second reception [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, DU of the IAB node performs DL transmission to the child node (FIG. 2) and UL reception from the child node (FIG. 1)], or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by ZTE in the system of Ghan’126 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but ZTE discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine whether the first wireless communication node is configured a multiplexing case not constrained to time-division multiplexing (TDM) while using at least one reference signal index in the plurality of the reference signal indices [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, in case of FDM/SDM reception between access and backhaul links at a given IAB node; note that a beam/reference signal indicated in parent indication/configuration is used].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by ZTE in the system of Ghan’126 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine whether a resource on which to perform the second communication is configured as a soft resource and the resource is indicated available by an availability indication [see claim 1, lines 11-14].
Regarding claim 12, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 discloses, receive a plurality of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states, reference signal resource indicators, or a combination thereof associated with the second functional entity; and determine whether at least one TCI state in the plurality of TCI states, one reference signal resource indicator in the plurality of reference signal resource indicators, or a combination thereof is used for the first communication [see claim 1, lines 22-25].
Regarding claim 13, Ghan’126 in view of ZTE discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Ghan’126 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but ZTE discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine whether the first communication and the second communication are performed on overlapping resources [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, since DL reception by the MT and UL reception by the DU (FIG. 1) or the UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU (FIG. 2) are performed simultaneously in FDM/SDM manner, the reception/transmission by the MT and the reception by the DU are performed on overlapping time resources].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by ZTE in the system of Ghan’126 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, since claim 14 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Ghan’126 discloses, an apparatus for performing a network function [see claim 1, line 1], the apparatus [see claim 1, line 1] comprising:
at least one memory [see claim 1, line 4]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to [see claim 1, lines 5-6]:
receive, at an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node [see claim 1, lines 8-16], a medium access control (MAC) message control element (CE) message [see claim 5] from a parent node [see claim 1, lines 23-25], wherein the MAC message comprises a plurality of reference signal (RS) indices indicating quasi-collocation properties [see claim 1, lines 23-25].
Ghan’126 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but ZTE discloses, the MAC CE message comprises a plurality of reference signal indices indicating quasi-collocation properties according to which a first transmission or a first reception by an IAB mobile terminal (IAB-MT) and a second transmission or a second reception by an IAB distributed unit (IAB-DU) is restricted based at least in part on the first transmission or the first reception being simultaneous with the second transmission or the second reception [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node, so that these two links don’t interference each other; further see, TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario; note that the DL reception by MT of the IAB node and the UL reception by DU of the IAB node are restricted due to interferences (CLI) based on both receptions are performs simultaneous; and similar rationales can be derived from FIG. 2 its descriptions (i.e., UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU)]; and determine whether the IAB-DU performs the second transmission or the second reception [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node (i.e., IAB-DU) can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node (i.e., second reception), so that these two links don’t interference each other; note that similar rationales can be derived from FIG. 2 its descriptions (i.e., UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU)] based in part on the at least one processor being configured to cause the apparatus to: determine whether IAB node is configured with a multiplexing case not constrained to time-division multiplexing (TDM) while using at least one reference signal index in the plurality of the reference signal indices [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, in case of FDM/SDM reception between access and backhaul links at a given IAB node; note that a beam/reference signal indicated in parent indication/configuration is used].
The above-mentioned features are well known/established in the telecommunication art as recited in 3GPP standard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide well-established standard of providing the above-mentioned well-known feature, as taught by ZTE in the system of Ghan’126, so that it would provide interoperability and compatibility between telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers, thereby providing users with easier and faster seamless transition regardless where the users are located in the country/world.
Regarding claim 16, since claim 16 recites similar features to claim 15 without further additional features, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Enhancements for simultaneous operation of child and parent links” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e, October 26th - November 13th, 2020 (R1-2008859) (hereinafter, “ZTE”) in view of Cirik et al (US Publication No. 2020/0052769).
Regarding claim 1, ZTE discloses, an apparatus for performing a network function [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node], the apparatus [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node] comprising:
at least one memory [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node; note that every network device has at least one memory]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node; note that every network device has at least one processor coupled with the memory]:
receive, at a first wireless communication node [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node], a control message from a second wireless communication node [FIG. 1; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration; further see FIG. 2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam will be used for its MT UL transmission via parent indication/configuration; note that the IAB node receives the parent indication/configuration], wherein the control message comprises a reference signal index indicating quasi-collocation properties [FIG. 1; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node, so that these two links don’t interference each other; note that the DL reception beam from the parent node and the UL beam from the child node in the parent indication are configured as not interfering each other (i.e., quasi-collocation properties); further see, “TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario” and “SRI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Tx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul uplink (Link 1 in Figure 2). The scheme of SRI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous transmission scenario”; note that TCI (transmission configuration indicator) and SRI (sounding reference signal indicator/index) are understood as the claimed reference signal index] according to whether a first communication by a first functional entity and a second communication by a second functional entity is restricted based at least in part on the first communication being simultaneous with the second communication [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node, so that these two links don’t interference each other; further see, TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario; note that the DL reception by MT of the IAB node and the UL reception by DU of the IAB node are restricted due to interferences (CLI) based on both receptions are performs simultaneous; and similar rationales can be derived from FIG. 2 its descriptions (i.e., UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU)]; and
determine whether the second functional entity performs the second communication based in part on the control message [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node (i.e., IAB-DU) can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node (i.e., second reception), so that these two links don’t interference each other; note that similar rationales can be derived from FIG. 2 its descriptions (i.e., UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU)].
Although ZTE discloses, “wherein the control message comprises a reference signal index indicating quasi-collocation properties according to whether a first communication by a first functional entity and a second communication by a second functional entity is restricted based at least in part on the first communication being simultaneous with the second communication” as set forth above, ZTE does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), “a reference signal index” are modified to be “a plurality of” reference signal indices.
However, Cirik discloses, wherein the control message comprises “a plurality of” reference signal indices indicating quasi-collocation properties [¶0412, the first set of periodic CSI-RS resource configurations (i.e., control message) may include one or more RS indexes (i.e., a plurality of reference signal indices) with QCL-TypeD configuration, for example, based on the first set of periodic CSI-RS resource configurations includes two RS indexes].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of ZTE with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Cirik to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Cirik into the system of ZTE would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as enabling a network device to select QCL reference signals for simultaneous links to increase reliability, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein: an integrated access and backhaul central unit (IAB-CU) configures the first wireless communication node with a plurality of reference signals associated with the plurality of the reference signal indices [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node, so that these two links don’t interference each other; further see, “TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario” and “SRI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Tx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul uplink (Link 1 in Figure 2). The scheme of SRI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous transmission scenario”; note that TCI (transmission configuration indicator) and SRI (sounding reference signal indicator/index) are understood as the claimed reference signal indices and further note that the parent node is the claimed IAB-CU]; and
the IAB-CU indicates information of the plurality of reference signals, the plurality of reference signal indices, or a combination thereof to the second wireless communication node [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration].
ZTE does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Cirik discloses, . . . to the second wireless communication node over an F1 interface [¶0319, An F1 interface (e.g., CU-DU interface) connecting a base station CU and base station DUs may be an ideal or non-ideal backhaul. F1-C may provide a control plane connection over an F1 interface, and F1-U may provide a user plane connection over the F1].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of ZTE with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Cirik to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Cirik into the system of ZTE would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring to simplify supports efficient management of access and backhaul in IAB networks, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 3, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein the first wireless communication node comprises an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node] and the second wireless communication node comprises a parent node of the first wireless communication node [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, parent node].
Regarding claim 5, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein the quasi-collocation properties comprise a quasi-collocation with respect to a spatial receive (RX) parameter [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node (i.e., IAB-DU) can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node; note that the reception beam implicitly means a direction of the RX beam (i.e., spatial RX parameter)].
Regarding claim 6, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein the first functional entity comprises an integrated access and backhaul mobile terminal (IAB-MT) [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, MT of the IAB node].
Regarding claim 7, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein the second functional entity comprises an integrated access and backhaul distributed unit (IAB-DU) [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, DU of the IAB node].
Regarding claim 8, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein the first wireless communication node comprises the first functional entity and the second functional entity [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, the IAB node comprises the MT and the DU].
Regarding claim 9, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein: the first communication comprises a first transmission, a first reception, or a combination thereof [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, MT of the IAB node performs UL transmission to the parent node (FIG. 2) and DL reception from the parent node (FIG. 1)]; and the second communication comprises a second transmission, a second reception [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, DU of the IAB node performs DL transmission to the child node (FIG. 2) and UL reception from the child node (FIG. 1)], or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 10, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine whether the first wireless communication node is configured a multiplexing case not constrained to time-division multiplexing (TDM) while using at least one reference signal index in the plurality of the reference signal indices [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, in case of FDM/SDM reception between access and backhaul links at a given IAB node; note that a beam/reference signal indicated in parent indication/configuration is used].
Regarding claim 12, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, receive a plurality of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states, reference signal resource indicators, or a combination thereof associated with the second functional entity; and determine whether at least one TCI state in the plurality of TCI states, one reference signal resource indicator in the plurality of reference signal resource indicators, or a combination thereof is used for the first communication [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario” and “SRI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Tx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul uplink (Link 1 in Figure 2). The scheme of SRI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous transmission scenario”].
Regarding claim 13, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine whether the first communication and the second communication are performed on overlapping resources [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, since DL reception by the MT and UL reception by the DU (FIG. 1) or the UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU (FIG. 2) are performed simultaneously in FDM/SDM manner, the reception/transmission by the MT and the reception by the DU are performed on overlapping time resources].
Regarding claim 14, since claim 14 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Enhancements for simultaneous operation of child and parent links” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e, October 26th - November 13th, 2020 (R1-2008859) (hereinafter, “ZTE”) in view of Cirik et al (US Publication No. 2020/0052769) and further in view of Luo et al (US Publication No. 2021/0298064).
Regarding claim 11, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE in view of Cirik does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Luo discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine whether a resource on which to perform the second communication is configured as a soft resource and the resource is indicated available by an availability indication [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0091, soft resource may be explicitly or implicitly indicated as available. For example, a soft resource may be explicitly indicated as available when the parent IAB node 702 indicates to the child IAB node 703 that the resource will be available].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Luo in the system of ZTE in view of Cirik in order to cause the system to be able to avoid conflict with resources utilized by a mobile terminal and a distributed unit of an IAB node [e.g., ¶0091 of Luo].
Claims 4, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Enhancements for simultaneous operation of child and parent links” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e, October 26th - November 13th, 2020 (R1-2008859) (hereinafter, “ZTE”) in view of Cirik et al (US Publication No. 2020/0052769) and further in view of Faxer et al (US Publication No. 2020/0389883).
Regarding claim 4, ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
ZTE in view of Cirik does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Faxer discloses, wherein the control message comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) message [¶0099, different types of DL reference signals (e.g. the SSB and the CSI-RS) can be used as reference RS for spatial QCL in a TCI state. Hence, different types of global RS indices (e.g. IDs) spanning different index spaces may be possible to convey in a MAC CE message updating the spatial QCL reference of a TCI state; further see ¶0098, as part of the update, a new DL RS ID indicating the new QCL reference RS can be transmitted via MAC CE signaling; further see ¶0111].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of ZTE in view of Cirik with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Faxer to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Faxer into the system of ZTE in view of Cirik would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring dynamic coordination between IAB links in IAB networks for efficient beam and channel management, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 15, ZTE discloses, an apparatus for performing a network function [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node], the apparatus [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node] comprising:
at least one memory [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node; note that every network device has at least one memory]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node; note that every network device has at least one processor coupled with the memory]:
receive, at an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; pages 5-6, IAB node], . . . message from a parent node [FIG. 1; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration; further see FIG. 2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam will be used for its MT UL transmission via parent indication/configuration; note that the IAB node receives the parent indication/configuration], wherein the . . message comprises a reference signal (RS) index indicating quasi-collocation properties [FIG. 1; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node, so that these two links don’t interference each other; note that the DL reception beam from the parent node and the UL beam from the child node in the parent indication are configured as not interfering each other (i.e., quasi-collocation properties); further see, “TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario” and “SRI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Tx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul uplink (Link 1 in Figure 2). The scheme of SRI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous transmission scenario”; note that TCI (transmission configuration indicator) and SRI (sounding reference signal indicator/index) are understood as the claimed reference signal index] according to which a first transmission or a first reception by an IAB mobile terminal (IAB-MT) and a second transmission or a second reception by an IAB distributed unit (IAB-DU) is restricted based at least in part on the first transmission or the first reception being simultaneous with the second transmission or the second reception [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node, so that these two links don’t interference each other; further see, TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario; note that the DL reception by MT of the IAB node and the UL reception by DU of the IAB node are restricted due to interferences (CLI) based on both receptions are performs simultaneous; and similar rationales can be derived from FIG. 2 its descriptions (i.e., UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU)]; and
determine whether the IAB-DU performs the second transmission or the second reception [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, if the IAB node can know in advance which beam (i.e., reference signal) will be used for parent DL via parent indication/configuration, the IAB node (i.e., IAB-DU) can determine the appropriate reception beam for the child node (i.e., second reception), so that these two links don’t interference each other; note that similar rationales can be derived from FIG. 2 its descriptions (i.e., UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU)] based in part on the at least one processor being configured to cause the apparatus to:
determine whether IAB node is configured with a multiplexing case not constrained to time-division multiplexing (TDM) while using at least one reference signal index in the reference signal index [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, in case of FDM/SDM reception between access and backhaul links at a given IAB node; note that a beam/reference signal indicated in parent indication/configuration is used];
determine whether a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state, a reference signal (RS) resource index, a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicator (SRI), or some combination thereof associated with the IAB- MT is used for the first transmission or the first reception [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, TCI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Rx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul downlink (Link 1 in FIG. 1). The scheme of TCI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous reception scenario” and “SRI is introduced in Rel-15 for UE’s Tx beam indication, which can be used to allow the IAB node to know the beam used on backhaul uplink (Link 1 in Figure 2). The scheme of SRI can be a starting point for CLI coordination in IAB simultaneous transmission scenario”];
determine whether the first transmission or the first reception and the second transmission or the second reception are performed on overlapping symbols, overlapping resource blocks (RBs), overlapping groups of resource blocks, or a combination thereof [FIGS. 1-2; section 2.3; page 5, since DL reception by the MT and UL reception by the DU (FIG. 1) or the UL transmission by the MT and DL transmission by the DU (FIG. 2) are performed simultaneously in FDM/SDM manner, the reception/transmission by the MT and the reception by the DU are performed on overlapping time resources]; or a combination thereof.
ZTE does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), “a reference signal index” are modified to be “a plurality of” reference signal indices.
However, Cirik discloses, wherein the control message comprises “a plurality of” reference signal indices indicating quasi-collocation properties [¶0412, the first set of periodic CSI-RS resource configurations (i.e., control message) may include one or more RS indexes (i.e., a plurality of reference signal indices) with QCL-TypeD configuration, for example, based on the first set of periodic CSI-RS resource configurations includes two RS indexes].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of ZTE with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Cirik to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Cirik into the system of ZTE would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as enabling a network device to select QCL reference signals for simultaneous links to increase reliability, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Although ZTE in view of Cirik discloses, “receive, at an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, a message from a parent node, wherein the message comprises a plurality of reference signal (RS) indices indicating quasi-collocation properties”, ZTE does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the message is modified to be “MAC CE” message.
However, Faxer discloses, receive, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) message from a parent node, wherein the MAC CE message comprises a plurality of reference signal (RS) indices indicating quasi-collocation properties [¶0099, different types of DL reference signals (e.g. the SSB and the CSI-RS) can be used as reference RS for spatial QCL in a TCI state. Hence, different types of global RS indices (e.g. IDs) spanning different index spaces may be possible to convey in a MAC CE message updating the spatial QCL reference of a TCI state; further see ¶0098, as part of the update, a new DL RS ID indicating the new QCL reference RS can be transmitted via MAC CE signaling; further see ¶0111].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Faxer in the system of ZTE in view of Cirik for similar rationales set forth above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, since claim 16 recites similar features to claim 15 without further additional features, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hua et al (US Publication No. 2021/0185694) [¶0106]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 See, preliminary amended claims dated 08/05/2023.
2 ZTE was filed in an IDS by the applicant.