Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 07/02/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Qualcomm does not disclose the independent claims’ limitation “the uplink time unit is at least used by the repeater to forward a first signal to the network device, the first signal being obtained by the repeater by performing processing on a first received signal, and the downlink time unit is at least used by the repeater to receive a second signal from the network device, the second signal being processed and forwarded by the repeater after being received” [Remarks pg. 10]. Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant argues Qualcomm only discloses the data path is analog and therefore does not rely on the time units [pg. 11+]. Qualcomm discloses the data path is fully controlled by the control path, which uses the time units [pg. 9]. Therefore, under BRI, the time units are “used”, at least in some capacity for the “forwarding” and “processing”. Additionally, elsewhere Qualcomm clearly discloses both RF and Smart repeaters using DL/UL slots (i.e., time units) to pass data between the gNB and UE. Consequently, the claims remain rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7 and 12, 14-15 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, although Qualcomm and Nokia generally disclose a repeater, controlled by a gNB, amplifying and forwarding data, they do not disclose the detailed limitations and specific relationships as recited in these claims. Consequently, these claims are allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm (“NR Smart Repeaters for Rel-18”, 3GPP TSG RAN Rel-18 workshop, cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Nokia (“Considerations on TDD repeater synchronization and CLI”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG4 Meeting #100-e, R4-2113668, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Qualcomm discloses a communication apparatus (Smart repeater (inherent) [pg. 7]), configured in a repeater (Smart repeater [pg. 7]), the communication apparatus comprising:
a receiver (Repeater (R) [pg. 9]) configured to receive first indication information from a network device, the first indication information being used to indicate a time division duplex (TDD) uplink and downlink configuration (gNB (i.e., network device) provides control info (i.e., first indication info), which indicates TDD config for UL/DL [pg. 9]), the TDD uplink and downlink configuration at least indicating a group of time units (TDD UL/DL [pg. 9]), the group of time units including one of the following:
a downlink time unit [pg. 7];
a downlink time unit and a flexible time unit [pg. 7];
a downlink time unit, a flexible time unit and an uplink time unit [pg. 7];
a flexible time unit and an uplink time unit [pg. 7]; and
an uplink time unit [pg. 7],
wherein the uplink time unit is a symbol and/or a slot, the downlink time unit is a symbol and/or a slot, and the flexible time unit is a symbol and/or a slot (Symbols and/or slots [pg. 7]),
the uplink time unit is at least used by the repeater to forward a first signal to the network device, the first signal being obtained by the repeater by performing processing on a first received signal, and the downlink time unit is at least used by the repeater to receive a second signal from the network device, the second signal being processed and forwarded by the repeater after being received (The repeater forwards data between the gNB and UE using the TDD config info, where the smart repeater both processes (i.e., at least by amplifying) and forwards the data [pg. 4-5, 7, 9, 13]).
Although Qualcomm discloses first indication info, as discussed above, Qualcomm does not explicitly disclose and the first indication information is included in radio resource control (RRC) signaling, higher-layer signaling comprising tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, and/or higher-layer signaling comprising tdd-UL-DL-ConfiguratingDedicated. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Nokia.
In the same field of endeavor, Nokia discloses:
and the first indication information is included in radio resource control (RRC) signaling, higher-layer signaling comprising tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, and/or higher-layer signaling comprising tdd-UL-DL-ConfiguratingDedicated (RRC signaling [pg. 2 “Observation 2”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qualcomm with Nokia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of learning TDD UL-DL patterns [Nokia pg. 2 “Observation 2”].
Regarding claim 9, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the network and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Qualcomm further discloses a communication apparatus (gNB (inherent) [pg. 7]), configured in a network device (gNB [pg. 7]), wherein the communication apparatus comprising: a transmitter (gNB (inherent) [pg. 7]) configured to transmit first indication information to a repeater (Control info to configure repeater [pg. 9]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Qualcomm and Nokia disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Qualcomm further discloses further comprising
a processor (Smart repeater (inherent) [pg. 7]) configured to control to amplify the first received signal to obtain the first signal and control to amplify the received second signal [pg. 4-5, 7, 9, 13],
a first transmitter configured to transmit the first signal to the network device [pg. 4-5, 7, 9, 13], and
a second transmitter configured to transmit the amplified second signal [pg. 4-5, 7, 9, 13].
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Qualcomm and Nokia disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Qualcomm further discloses wherein,
a transmission space filter used by the repeater to transmit third signal to the network device is identical to a transmission space filter used by the repeater to forward the first signal to the network device (Beams (i.e., filters) for transmitting or forwarding the signal are the same [pg. 7 (beam between gNB and SR)]); and/or
a reception space filter used by the repeater to receive fourth signal from the network device is identical to a reception space filter used by the repeater to receive the second signal.
Claims 2, 8 and 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm and Nokia.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Qualcomm and Nokia disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Qualcomm further discloses wherein,
the first indication information is at least further used to configure a period of the group of time units and/or a subcarrier spacing corresponding to the group of time units [pg. 7].
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Qualcomm and Nokia disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Qualcomm discloses wherein, the receiver is further configured to receive the first indication information from the network device [pg. 9] and being a serving cell of the repeater [pg. 7], and as discussed above, Qualcomm does not explicitly disclose in a first cell, the first cell. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Nokia.
In the same field of endeavor, Nokia discloses:
in a first cell, the first cell (RRC signaling [pg. 2 “Observation 2”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qualcomm with Nokia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of learning TDD UL-DL patterns [Nokia pg. 2 “Observation 2”].
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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights