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 .
Claims 1-8 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Communication section… is performed (claim 1 lines 2-7)
Control section… from the parent node (claim 1 lines 8-10)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 5
The language “performing a simultaneous communication operation and a single communication operation, the simultaneous communication operation being an operation in which first communication with a child node or a terminal and second communication with a parent node are simultaneously performed, the single communication operation being an operation in which either the first communication or the second communication is performed” renders the claim indefinite because the simultaneous communication operation and single communication operation are mutually exclusive such that only one may be performed at a time. The examiner assumes the language should read “performing one of a simultaneous communication operation or a single communication operation, the simultaneous communication operation being an operation in which first communication with a child node or a terminal and second communication with a parent node are simultaneously performed, the single communication operation being an operation in which either the first communication or the second communication is performed”.
In reference to claim 8
The limitation "a guard symbol section" and “a resource” in claim 8, line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “guard symbol section" and “resource” in claim 8 line 2 are the same “guard symbol section" and “resource” of parent claim 3 or if they are different. If they are the same, the applicant should amend claim 8 to recite "the guard symbol section" and “the resource”. If they are different, the applicant should amend claim 8 to recite "a second guard symbol section" and “a second resource”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LUO et al. (US 2022/0322299).
- In reference to claim 1
LUO et al. teaches a radio node (e.g. IAB node 204; Fig. 6, par. 0059) comprising:
a communication section (e.g. combination of transceiver 602/RF Front End 688, and Antenna 665; Fig. 6 par. 0062-0067), that performs a simultaneous communication operation (e.g. SDM-half duplex configuration 402; Fig. 4, par. 0052) and a single communication operation (e.g. TDM configuration 400; Fig. 4, par. 0052), the simultaneous communication operation being an operation in which first communication with a child node or a terminal and second communication with a parent node are simultaneously performed (e.g. simultaneous communication operation with first communication with child node UE or downstream IAB node and second communication with a upstream parent node 202; see 402, Fig. 4; par. 0052), the single communication operation being an operation in which either the first communication or the second communication is performed (e.g. single communication operation with first communication with child node or second communication with a upstream parent node 202; see 400, Fig. 4; par. 0052); and
a control section (e.g. processor 612; Fig. 6 par. 0059-0060) that determines to switch between the simultaneous communication operation and the single communication operation, based on either one of or both of a report to the parent node and indication from the parent node (e.g. switching between the simultaneous communication operation and the single communication operation based on resource configuration 500 from an upstream parent node 202; par. 0053-0057).
- In reference to claim 5, as best understood
LUO et al. teaches radio communication method, comprising:
performing one of a simultaneous communication operation (e.g. SDM-half duplex configuration 402; Fig. 4, par. 0052) and a single communication operation (e.g. TDM configuration 400; Fig. 4, par. 0052), the simultaneous communication operation being an operation in which first communication with a child node or a terminal and second communication with a parent node are simultaneously performed (e.g. simultaneous communication operation with first communication with child node UE or downstream IAB node and second communication with a upstream parent node 202; see 402, Fig. 4; par. 0052), the single communication operation being an operation in which either the first communication or the second communication is performed (e.g. single communication operation with first communication with child node or second communication with a upstream parent node 202; see 400, Fig. 4; par. 0052); and
determining to switch between the simultaneous communication operation and the single communication operation, based on either one of or both of a report to the parent node and indication from the parent node (e.g. switching between the simultaneous communication operation and the single communication operation based on resource configuration 500 from an upstream parent node 202; par. 0053-0057).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (US 2022/0322299) in view of “Discussion on enhancements to resource multiplexing between child and parent links of an IAB node” by CEWiT (R1-2006329).
- In reference to claim 2
LUO et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
LUO et al. does not teach the control section determines to switch between a transmission operation and a reception operation in the simultaneous communication operation, based on either one of or both of the report and the indication.
R1-2006329 teaches determining to switch between a transmission operation and a reception operation in the simultaneous communication operation, based on either one of or both of the report and the indication (e.g. IAB node determines to switch between a transmission operation and a reception operation in a simultaneous communication operation based on an signaling indication from parent node; See Section 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control section of LUO et al. to determine to switch between a transmission operation and a reception operation in the simultaneous communication operation, based on either one of or both of the report and the indication as suggested by R1-2006329 because it would allow the radio node to perform a transmission operation or a reception operation based upon signaling indication from a parent node so it could both transmit and received node with a parent or child node.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (US 2022/0322299) in view of LUO et al. (US 2021/0298036)
- In reference to claim 3
LUO et al. ‘299 teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
LUO et al. ‘299 does not teach the communication section stops communication in a guard symbol section in a resource before switching.
LUO et al. ‘036 teaches stopping communication in a guard symbol section in a resource before switching (e.g. child 1003 stopping transmitting in a guard symbol section 1018 in a time resource before DU to MT switch; Fig. 10, par. 0077-0078).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control section of LUO et al. ‘299 to stop communication in a guard symbol section in a resource before switching as suggested by LUO et al. ‘036 in order to avoid interference between a first communication and second communication within a network.
- In reference to claim 4
LUO et al. ‘299 teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
LUO et al. ‘299 does not teach the communication section stops communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching.
LUO et al. ‘036 teaches stopping communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching (e.g. child 1003 stopping receiving in a guard symbol section 1016 in a time resource after MT to DU switch; Fig. 10, par. 0077-0078).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control section of LUO et al. ‘299 to stop communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching as suggested by LUO et al. ‘036 in order to avoid interference between a first communication and second communication within a network.
- In reference to claim 8, as best understood
The combination of LUO et al. ‘299 and LUO et al. ‘036 teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
LUO et al. ‘299 does not teach the communication section stops communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching.
LUO et al. ‘036 teaches stopping communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching (e.g. child 1003 stopping receiving in a guard symbol section 1016 in a time resource after MT to DU switch; Fig. 10, par. 0077-0078).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control section of LUO et al. ‘299 to stop communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching as suggested by LUO et al. ‘036 in order to avoid interference between a first communication and second communication within a network.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (US 2022/0322299) in view of “Discussion on enhancements to resource multiplexing between child and parent links of an IAB node” by CEWiT (R1-2006329), as applied to the parent claim, and further in view of LUO et al. (US 2021/0298036).
- In reference to claim 6
The combination of LUO et al. ‘299 and R1-2006329 teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
The combination of LUO et al. ‘299 and R1-2006329 does not teach the communication section stops communication in a guard symbol section in a resource before switching.
LUO et al. ‘036 teaches stopping communication in a guard symbol section in a resource before switching (e.g. child 1003 stopping transmitting in a guard symbol section 1018 in a time resource before DU to MT switch; Fig. 10, par. 0077-0078).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control section of LUO et al. ‘299 to stop communication in a guard symbol section in a resource before switching as suggested by the combination of LUO et al. ‘299 and R1-2006329 in order to avoid interference between a first communication and second communication within a network.
- In reference to claim 7
The combination of LUO et al. ‘299 and R1-2006329 teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
The combination of LUO et al. ‘299 and R1-2006329 does not teach the communication section stops communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching.
LUO et al. ‘036 teaches stopping communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching (e.g. child 1003 stopping receiving in a guard symbol section 1016 in a time resource after MT to DU switch; Fig. 10, par. 0077-0078).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control section of the combination of LUO et al. ‘299 and R1-2006329 to stop communication in a guard symbol section in a resource after switching as suggested by LUO et al. ‘036 in order to avoid interference between a first communication and second communication within a network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 2020/0337056 receiving a semi-static resource allocation (812) from a central unit (CU) (806) based on one multiplexing capability of the first node. A change request (818) is communicated to the CU to modify the semi-static resource allocation. The first multiplexing capability provides one of Spatial Division Multiplexing (SDM) or Frequency Division Multiplexing (FDM), and the SDM includes one of SDM Full Duplex (SDM FD) or SDM Half-Duplex (SDM HD). The first multiplexing capability is with respect to multiple transmission direction combinations of the first node. The first node includes a mobile terminal (MT) and a distributed unit (DU), and where the multiple transmission direction combinations provides one of MT transmission and DU transmission, MT transmission and DU reception, MT reception and DU transmission, or MT reception and DU reception.
US 2020/0351753 pertains to a node in a multi-hop network may receive a configuration for a notification signal, wherein the configuration indicates a receive (RX) resource to be used by the node to monitor for the notification signal and a transmit (TX) resource to be used by the node to transmit the notification signal, wherein the RX resource and the TX resource are included in a time period that also includes one or more other RX resources and one or more other TX resources to be used by one or more other nodes in the multi-hop network for the notification signal. The node in a multi-hop network may refrain from transmitting or receiving in any resources within the time period except for the RX resource and the TX resource.
US 2021/0360482 pertains to Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) nodes communicating with one another in half-duplex mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466