DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/569,276 filed on 12/12/2023. The amendment presented on 4/28/2026, which cancels claims 2-7 and 9-16, amends claims 1 and 8, and adds new claims 17-18, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 8, and 17-18 have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The amendment to the Title "RADIO ACCESS NETWORK NODE FOR CONTROLLING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ON BACK-HAUL AND ACCESS LINKS” has been considered and is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 17-18 contain determining whether to perform or not the second wireless communication on the access link based on a beam state of the first wireless communication, which was not described in the specification. Also the claimed terminology of the beam state were not described in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (hereinafter Lu)(US 2017/0196015) in view of Seol et al. (hereinafter Seol)(US 2013/0045690).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Lu teaches as follows:
A Radio Access Network (RAN) node (interpreted as first node 110 and 121 in figure 8)(in a typical wireless, cellular or radio communications network, wireless devices, also known as mobile stations, terminals, and/or User Equipment, UEs, communicate via a Radio-Access Network, RAN, see, ¶ [0002] and figure 1)(any network devices in the RAN are RAN nodes) comprising:
at least one memory (memory module 820 in figure 8) storing instructions, and at least one processor (810 in figure 8) configured to execute the instructions to (the memory 820 may be arranged to be used to store executable instructions and data to perform the methods described herein when being executed in or by the processor 810 of the first node 110, 121, see, ¶ [0088] and figure 8):
receive first information regarding a back-haul link between a first base station (interpreted as the base station 112 in figure 1) and the RAN node (interpreted as the first node 110 in figure 1)(the first node 110, 121 may determine whether or not transmissions are scheduled (equivalent to applicant’s first information) for the subset of transmission resources on the back-haul link 131, 133. This means that the first node 110, 121 may detect if there is any activity on the subset of transmission resources by the third node 112, 111 for the back-haul link 131, 133, such as, e.g. downlink, DL, data or uplink, UL, grant, see, ¶ [0041] and figure 3);
apply the first information for a first wireless communication on the back-haul link (when transmissions are scheduled for the subset of transmission resources on the back-haul link 131, 133, the first node 110, 121 allocates the subset of transmission resources to the back-haul link 131, 133, see, ¶ [0050] and action 302A in figure 3);
determine not to perform a second wireless communication on an access link between the RAN node an a user terminal (when transmissions are not scheduled for the subset of transmission resources on the back-haul link 131, 133, the first node 110, 121 allocates the subset of transmission resources to the access link 132, 134, see, ¶ [0052])(therefore, no allocation in the access link when transmissions are scheduled on back-haul link).
Lu does not teach determining a second wireless communication based on a beam state of the first wireless communication.
Seol teaches as follows:
The transmit end estimates information of a channel correlation between Tx beam patterns or a channel correlation between Tx/Rx beam pattern combinations considering the beam management capability of the transmit end, the beam management capability of the receive end, and the MIMO stream management capability of the receive end. After that, the transmit end selects any one of the spatial multiplexing transmission scheme and the diversity transmission scheme (equivalent to applicant’s second wireless communication) considering the information the channel correlation between the Tx/Rx beam pattern (equivalent to applicant’s beam state) combinations (see, ¶ [0147]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu with Seol to include selecting appropriate transmission scheme based on Tx/Rx beam pattern in order to improve efficiency and capacity.
Regarding claims 17-18, Lu in view of Seol teaches similar limitations as presented above and Lu further teaches as follows:
When transmissions are not scheduled for the subset of transmission resources on the back-haul link 131, 133, the first node 110, 121 allocates the subset of transmission resources to the access link 132, 134 (see, ¶ [0052] and Action 302B in figure 3).
Therefore, they are rejected for similar limitations as presented above.
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 Jeong S Park whose telephone number is (571)270-1597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, Rebecca E Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. 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.
/JEONG S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights