DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/619363 filed on 03/28/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 were cancelled.
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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 and 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 21 recites: A wireless communication method, comprising: determining, by a network node, a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determining, by the network node, a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 21 and 28 is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a method.
.
Step 2A:Judicial Exception
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A wireless communication method, comprising: determining, by a network node, a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determining, by the network node, a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determining a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using the “hardware” (i.e. a network node) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the claimed function), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of using the “hardware” (i.e. a network node) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 28 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 28 merely contain additional limitations defining the first unit and the second unit. Claim 28 contain no further/additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 21, will overcome the current claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 29 recites: “A network node, comprising: at least one processor configured to: determine a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determine a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 29 is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting an apparatus.
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 29 recites “A network node, comprising: at least one processor configured to: determine a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determine a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determine a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determine a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using the “hardware” (i.e. a processor) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing the claimed function), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of using the “hardware” (i.e. a processor) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 36-40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 36 recites: “A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions, the instructions when executed cause at least one processor of a network node to: determine a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determine a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 36-40 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a “non-transitory readable storage medium”.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 36 recites “A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions, the instructions when executed cause at least one processor of a network node to: determine a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determine a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determine a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node, wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node; and determine a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node, wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using the “hardware” (i.e. a processor) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing the claimed function), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of using the “hardware” (i.e. a processor) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 37-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 37-40 merely contain (i) additional limitations defining additional uplink/downlink communications structure, or (ii) addition limitations for determining step/calculating step that can also be performed mentally. Claims 37-40 contain no further/additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 36, will overcome the current claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmitz et al. (US 2020/0221518 A1.)
As per claim 21, Schmitz discloses “A wireless communication method, comprising:” as [(par. 0121), FIG. 2F illustrates a “relay” topology.] “determining, by a network node, a timing of a downlink (DL) forwarding link for a DL reception by a first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of reception by a second unit of the network node,” [(fig. 2F and par. 0121), FIG. 2F illustrates a “relay” topology. As shown therein, during timeslot t0, the UE 206g and gNB 204 each transmit data. (Notice: During t0, the data which is received by UE 206f from gNB 204 is downlink (DL) data, and the data which is received by UE 206f from UE 206g is uplink (UL) data).] “wherein the DL forwarding link is established between the network node and a wireless communication node;” [(fig. 2F), the downlink (DL) communication between gNB and UE 206f.] “and determining, by the network node, a timing of an uplink (UL) forwarding link for a UL transmission by the first unit of the network node to be same as a timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node,” [(fig. 2F and par. 0121), FIG. 2F illustrates a “relay” topology. Then during timeslot t1, the UE 206f transmits on both uplink (toward gNB 204) and downlink (toward UE 206g). (Notice: During t1, the data which is transmitted (forwarded) by UE 206f to gNB 204 is the uplink (UL) data, and the data which is transmitted (forwarded) by UE 206f to UE 206g is the downlink (DL) data).] “wherein the UL forwarding link is established between the network node and the wireless communication node” [(fig. 2F), the uplink (UL) communication between UE 206f and gNB 204.]
As per claim 22, Schmitz discloses “The wireless communication method of claim 21,” as [see rejection of claim 21.] “further comprising receiving, by the network node from the wireless communication node, control information to support forwarding operations” [(par. 0112), Referring back to FIG. 2A, existing relay devices may pass control information via the control plane. Control information enables UEs to setup and transact data between one another in device-to-device (D2D) links. For example, the gNB 204 may provide control plane signaling to UE 206e, which is relayed to UEs 206c, 206d. Subsequently thereafter, UE 206c and UE 206d can use control plane data to establish a direct D2D data connection; thereafter data may be exchanged via the data plane.]
As per claim 23, Schmitz discloses “The wireless communication method of claim 21,” as [see rejection of claim 21.] “further comprising forwarding, by the first unit of the network node, at least one of (i) a first signal from the wireless communication node to a wireless communication device or (ii) a second signal from the wireless communication device to the wireless communication node” [(fig. 2F and par. 0121), Then during timeslot t1, the UE 206f transmits on both uplink (toward gNB 204) and downlink (toward UE 206g). (Notice: During t1, the data which is transmitted (forwarded) by UE 206f to gNB 204 is uplink (UL) data, and the data which is transmitted (forwarded) by UE 206f to UE 206g is downlink (DL) data).]
As per claim 24, Schmitz discloses “The wireless communication method of claim 23,” as [see rejection of claim 23.] “wherein a second DL forwarding link is established between the first unit and the wireless communication device” [(fig. 2F), the downlink (DL) communication from UE 206f to UE 206g.]
As per claim 25, Schmitz discloses “The wireless communication method of claim 24,” as [see rejection of claim 24.] “further comprising determining, by the network node, a timing of the second DL forwarding link for a DL transmission by the first unit of the network node, based on a first time difference and at least one of (i) the timing of the DL forwarding link for the reception by the first unit of the network node or (ii) the timing of reception by the second unit of the network node” [(fig. 2F and par. 0121), Then during timeslot t1, the UE 206f transmits on both uplink (toward gNB 204) and downlink (toward UE 206g). (Notice: During t1, the data which is transmitted (forwarded) by UE 206f to gNB 204 is the uplink (UL) data, and the data which is transmitted (forwarded) by UE 206f to UE 206g is the downlink (DL) data).]
As per claim 26, Schmitz discloses “The wireless communication method of claim 23,” as [see rejection of claim 23.] “wherein a second UL forwarding link is established between the first unit and the wireless communication device” [(fig. 2F), the uplink (UL) communication from UE 206g to UE 206f.]
As per claim 27, Schmitz discloses “The wireless communication method of claim 26,” as [see rejection of claim 26.] “further comprising determining, by the network node, a timing of the second UL forwarding link for a UL reception by the first unit of the network node, based on a second time difference and at least one of (i) the timing of the UL forwarding link for the UL transmission by a first unit of the network node or (ii) the timing of transmission by the second unit of the network node” [(fig. 2F and par. 0121), Then during timeslot t1, the UE 206f transmits on both uplink (toward gNB 204) and downlink (toward UE 206g). (Notice: During t1, the data which is transmitted (forwarded) by UE 206f to gNB 204 is the uplink (UL) data, and the data which is transmitted (forwarded) by UE 206f to UE 206g is the downlink (DL) data).]
As per claim 28, Schmitz discloses “The wireless communication method of claim 21,” as [see rejection of claim 21.] “wherein the second unit comprises a control unit (CU) or a mobile terminal (MT), and wherein the first unit comprises a forwarding unit (FU)” [(fig. 2F and par. 0121), Then during timeslot t1, the UE 206f transmits on both uplink (toward gNB 204) and downlink (toward UE 206g). (Notice: During t1, the data which is transmitted by UE 206f to gNB 204 is uplink (UL) data, and the data which is transmitted by UE 206f to UE 206g is downlink (DL) data).]
As per claims 29-35, as [see rejections of claims 21-27.]
As per claims 36-40, as [see rejections of claims 21, 24-27.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications:
Reaf (US 2011/0170475 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (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 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.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417