DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to the Application/Control Number: 18/695,719 filed on 03/26/2024.
Claims Status
2. This office action is based upon claims received on 07/10/2026, which replace all prior submitted versions of the claims.
- Claims 1-28 are pending.
- Claims 1-25, 28 are elected with traverse (See response below).
- Claims 26, 27 remain restricted
- Claims 1-3, 28 are rejected;
- Claims 4-25 are objected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of a 371 of PCT/CN2021/132324, filed 11/23/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2024, 08/07/2025, 12/31/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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 “unit” 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 “unit” 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 “unit” 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 “unit” (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 “unit” (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 “unit” (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 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) are: means for transmitting in claim 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 28 is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: FIG. 2, FIG. 17, ¶0090-¶0092; ¶0104-¶0106.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 el seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Response to Arguments/Remarks - Election/Restrictions
7. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, which includes claims 1-25, and
28 in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
A. Applicant in applicant’s response regarding restricted claims of group II – claim 26, group III claim 27 (See previous restriction office action - i.e. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features) presents that (See applicant’s remarks Page 7 ln 30, Page ln 1-2):
“the claims share technical features directed to configuring and using portions of a UCA antenna panel for access and backhaul communications, including corresponding signaling and processing associated with those configurable antenna resources.”
B. In response the office respectfully contends applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, since applicant has not shown where in the inventions of group I, group II and group III as defined by the independent claims, the features defined in applicant’s remarks of item A are recited. Specifically, per PCT ISPE Guidelines - paragraph 10.06 and MPEP 1850 - “10.06 Unity of invention has to be considered in the first place only in relation to the independent claims in an international application and not the dependent claims”.
As presented in the most recent restriction office action, the reasons for restriction continue apply to the claims as recited since i.e. the common technical features noted are not special technical features a posteriori, and therefore further results in a lack unity of invention between Group I, Group II, and Group III (i.e. as claimed), not only in light of TANG et al. (US 20210045130 A1) i.e. TANG as presented in restriction office action, but also in light of the prior art RYU et al. (US 20190230606 A1) i.e. “RYU”, and Gil et al. (US 11177990 B1) i.e. “Gil”, utilized in this office action to reject independent claim 1 of elected group I, where the features noted in the restriction office action as common technical features under PCT Rule 13.1, under PCT Rule 13.2, and emphasis added PCT ISPE Guidelines - paragraph 10.06, pertaining to Group I, II, and III, are furthermore taught in the rejection of claim 1 which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU et al. (US 20190230606 A1) i.e. “RYU”, in view of Gil et al. (US 11177990 B1) i.e. “Gil” (See office action).
For example, RYU in view Gil as presented (See rejection of claim 1 in this office action) teaches “A method for wireless communications”, and "transmitting traffic to a second wireless node on a backhaul link" corresponding to "receiving traffic from the first wireless node on the backhaul link" i.e. the common technical feature noted herein for group I claim 1 and group II claim 26. Furthermore RYU in view Gil as presented also teaches “A method for wireless communications” the common technical feature noted herein for group I claim 1 and group III claim 27, and likewise the common technical feature noted herein for group II claim 26 and group III claim 27.
Additionally, per the restriction action presented, the applicant has failed to show how any of the other claim features recited in the independent claims and identified as distinct i.e. distinctly defining the inventions in groups I, II, and III ( i.e. and not shared between the independent claims therefore unity of invention is lacking a priori), are common technical features across all the inventions (groups I, II, and III), even in light of applicant’s remarks in item A. Regarding applicant’s remarks in item A, applicant has not shown or referenced which specific claim recitations within the independent claims (i.e. defining the inventions) substantiate the shared technical features (i.e. as recited in the independent claims) that applicant claims are common technical features across the independent claims 1, 26, and 27 according to PCT ISPE Guidelines - paragraph 10.06 and MPEP 1850.
At least for the reasons presented herein, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
8. Claims 26, 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. Claims 26, 27 remain restricted for the reasons presented. While applicant elects claims 1-25, 28, claims 26, 27 which are non-elected, are marked as “(Original)” claims.
Applicant is requested to adjust the status of non-elected claims 26, 27 to withdrawn status subject to the restriction action requirement, which remains in effect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 12 13, 14, 16, 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A. Claim 4 recites terms “a middle region” a second time in a second recitation of “a middle region of the UCA antenna panel” after a preceding recitation of “a middle region” a first time in a first recitation of “a middle region of the UCA antenna panel” in Claim 4. The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “a middle region” the second time in Claim 4 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of “a middle region” the first time serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “a middle region” recited the second time , or whether the recitation the terms “a middle region” the second time refers to a separate instance of the terms “a middle region” different from the terms “a middle region” recited the first time .
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
B. Claim 6 recites terms “OAM mode” after a preceding recitation of “orbital angular momentum (OAM) mode” in Claim 3 from which claim 6 ultimately depends via claim 4. The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “OAM mode” the second time in Claim 6 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the preceding recitation of “orbital angular momentum (OAM) mode” in claim 3 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “OAM mode” in claim 6 , or whether the recitation the terms “OAM mode” in claim 6 refers to a separate instance of the terms “OAM mode” different from the terms “orbital angular momentum (OAM) mode” in Claim 3 .
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
C. Regarding Claims 9, 10 (Using claim 9 as an example representative of Claim 10) – Claim 9 recites terms “middle region” after a preceding recitation of “middle region” in Claim 4 from which claim 9 ultimately depends via claim 8. The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “middle region” the second time in Claim 9 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the preceding recitation of “middle region” in claim 4 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “middle region” in claim 9 , or whether the recitation the terms “middle region” in claim 9 refers to a separate instance of the terms “middle region” different from the terms “middle region” in Claim 4.
Claim 10 is subject to the same issues identified for claim 9.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
D. Claims 12 recites terms “the configuration” for a first time with a preceding article “the” (i.e. “the configuration”) without prior introduction or provision of a reference antecedence for “configuration”. There appears to be no preceding recitation of “configuration” introduced for provision of antecedent basis including in claims 4, 3, 1 from which claim 12 depends, and as such, this office action respectfully contends there is a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “the configuration” in Claim 12 finds antecedent basis.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and verify as applicable, applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
E. Regarding Claims 13, 14, 16, 22 (Using claim 13 as an example representative of Claims 14, 16, 22) – Claim 13 recites terms “antenna rings” after a preceding recitation of “antenna rings for an OAM receiver” in Claim 12 from which claim 13 ultimately depends. The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “antenna rings” in Claim 13 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the preceding recitation of “antenna rings” in claim 12 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “antenna rings” in claim 13, or whether the recitation the terms “antenna rings” in claim 13 refers to a separate instance of the terms “antenna rings” different from the terms “antenna rings” pertaining to “antenna rings for an OAM receiver” in Claim 12.
Claim 14 (depending from claim 12), Claim 16 (depending from Claim 4), Claim 22 (ultimately depending from Claim 4) are subject to the similar issues identified for claim 13 as pertaining to Claim 12 from which claim 13 depends.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
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, would be the same under either status.
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.
12. Claims 1 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU et al. (US 20190230606 A1) i.e. “RYU”, in view of Gil et al. (US 11177990 B1) i.e. “Gil”.
Regarding Claim 1. (Original) RYU teaches: A method for wireless communications by a first wireless node (RYU FIG. 2 & FIG. 5 & ¶0050 […] method 500 for determining (e.g., by a base station) a number of antennas in an antenna array to utilize in communicating with one or more devices (e.g., one or more UEs, one or more other base stations, etc.) in a wireless network;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per FIG. 5 & ¶0050 i.e. method 500 for determining reads on: A method , where per FIG. 5 & ¶0050 i.e. determining (e.g., by a base station) a number of antennas in an antenna array to utilize in communicating with one or more devices (e.g., one or more UEs, one or more other base stations, etc.) in a wireless network reads on: wireless communications FIG. 5 & ¶0050 i.e. determining (e.g., by a base station)reads on: by a first wireless node ),
comprising: transmitting traffic to a user equipment (UE) on an access link, using a first portion of a antenna panel (RYU FIG.1, FIG. 2 & FIG. 5 & ¶0035 […] communication links 125 shown in wireless communication system 100 may carry UL transmissions from a UE 115 to a base station 105, or downlink (DL) transmissions, from a base station 105 to a UE 115 […] ; ¶0040 […] FIG. 2, solid lines can represent backhaul links between nodes, such as backhaul link 234, dashed lines can represent backup backhaul links between the nodes, such as backup backhaul link 235, and dotted lines can represent access links between IAB-nodes 204 (or IAB-donor nodes 202) and UEs 206, such as access link 225. In addition, IAB-nodes 204 (e.g., and/or IAB-donor nodes) can include a communicating component 340 for selecting a subset of antennas of an antenna array for communicating with one or more devices in a wireless network (e.g., with one or more IAB-nodes 204, IAB-donor nodes 202, and/or UEs) […] ; ¶0060 […] determining the number of antennas at Block 502 may also optionally include, at Block 510, determining to use the number of antennas based on one or more parameters or detected conditions […] Antenna selecting component 344 can use this information in determining to use the subset of the antennas (e.g., as opposed to all antennas) to provide more desirable network conditions/usage; ¶0062 […] Block 514, one or more devices in a wireless network can be communicated with by using the number of antennas. In an aspect, communicating component 340, […] transceiver 370, etc., can communicate, using the number of antennas, with one or more devices in the wireless network, such as one or more UEs 115, one or more other base stations, etc.;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per FIG. 1 & ¶0035 i.e. communication links 125 shown in wireless communication system 100 may carry UL transmissions from a UE 115 to a base station 105, or i.e. downlink (DL) transmissions, from a base station 105 to a UE 115 reads on: comprising: transmitting traffic to a user equipment (UE) , where per FIG. 1 & ¶0035 i.e. communication links 125 applied to per ¶0050 i.e. dotted lines can represent access links between IAB-nodes 204 (or IAB-donor nodes 202) and UEs 206, such as access link 225 reads on: on an access link. Furthermore per FIG. 5 & ¶0062 i.e. Block 514, one or more devices in a wireless network can be communicated with by using the number of antennas. i.e. with one or more devices in the wireless network, such as one or more UEs 115, and furthermore per FIG. 2 & ¶0040 i.e. IAB-nodes 204 (e.g., and/or IAB-donor nodes) can include a communicating component 340 for selecting i.e. a subset of antennas of an antenna array reads on: using a first portion of a antenna panel i.e. for communicating with one or more devices in a wireless network (e.g., with one or more i.e. UEs));
and transmitting traffic to a second wireless node on a backhaul link, using a second portion of the antenna panel (RYU FIG.1, FIG. 2 & FIG. 5 & ¶0028 […]the base stations 105 may communicate with one another as part of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, as described further herein, where a first base station 105 can have an access node function (AN-F) for providing access to a second base station 105 (e.g., over a backhaul link), and the second base station 105 can have both of a UE function (UE-F) to communicate with the first base station 105 (e.g., over the backhaul link) and an AN-F to communicate with another downstream base station 105 (e.g., over another backhaul link) or UE 115 (e.g., over an access link), etc. […] ; ¶0035 See above; ¶0040 See above ; ¶0046 […] the base station 105 can communicate with, for example, base stations 105 […];¶0060 See above; ¶0062 See above;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per FIG. 1 & ¶0028 i.e. the base stations 105 may communicate with one another as part of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, as described further herein, where a first base station 105 can have an access node function (AN-F) for providing access to a second base station 105 (e.g., over a backhaul link), and the second base station 105 can have both of a UE function (UE-F) i.e. to communicate with the first base station 105 (e.g., over the backhaul link) and an AN-F to communicate with another downstream base station 105 (e.g., over another backhaul link) reads on: and transmitting traffic to a second wireless node i.e. per ¶0046 i.e. the base station 105 can communicate with, i.e. base stations 105. Furthermore, per FIG. 1 & ¶0028 i.e. the backhaul link applied to per ¶0050 i.e. dotted lines can represent access links between IAB-nodes 204 (or IAB-donor nodes 202) reads on: on a backhaul link. Furthermore per FIG. 5 & ¶0062 i.e. Block 514, one or more devices in a wireless network can be communicated with by using the number of antennas. i.e. with one or more devices in the wireless network, such as i.e. one or more other base stations, and furthermore per FIG. 2 & ¶0040 i.e. IAB-nodes 204 (e.g., and/or IAB-donor nodes) can include a communicating component 340 for selecting i.e. a subset of antennas of an antenna array reads on: using a second portion of the antenna panel i.e. for communicating with one or more devices in a wireless network (e.g., with one or more IAB-nodes 204, IAB-donor nodes 202)).
RYU does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): a uniform circular array (UCA) antenna;
Gil teaches: transmitting traffic, using a first portion of a uniform circular array (UCA) antenna panel, and transmitting traffic, using a second portion of the UCA antenna panel (Gil FIG. 2 & FIG. 3A, Col 3 (ln 35-43) […] One concentric circle constitutes one UCA antenna. FIG. 2 is a concentric UCA including n UCA antennas UCA1, UCA2, . . . , and UCAn. A concentric UCA means a plurality of UCA antennas having different diameters. In the following description, UCA.sub.k indicates a k.sup.th UCA in a concentric UCA. A UCA of a transmitter may be referred to as a “transmit UCA,” and a UCA of a receiver may be referred to as a “receive UCA.” […]; Col 3 (ln 61-64) […] an OAM-based transmitter 100. The transmitter 100 includes a power allocator 110, a splitter 120, a modulator 130, and a transmitting antenna 140. The transmitter 100 transmits j signals x on the basis of an input signal s […];
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per Col 3 (ln 61-64) i.e. The transmitter 100 transmits j signals x consisting of at least one signal x out of j reads on: transmitting traffic, where per FIG. 2 & FIG. 3A, Col 3 (ln 35-43) i.e. A UCA of a transmitter i.e. transmit UCA i.e. transmits j signals x via i.e. UCAj as depicted in FIG. 3A where One concentric circle constitutes one UCA antenna, and as depicted FIG. 2 is a concentric UCA includes n UCA antennas UCA1, UCA2, . . . , and UCAn i.e. at least one signal x on one concentric UCA antenna out of UCA1-UCAn as depicted FIG. 3A and FIG. 2 reads on: using a first portion of a uniform circular array (UCA) , where furthermore FIG. 3A depicts UCAj in i.e. a transmitting antenna 140 reads on: antenna panel. Likewise UCAj depicting 3 circles out of UCA1 -UCAn also indicates a combination of UCA circle antennas as applied to any other transmitter to receiver link or additionally i.e. each concentric circle constituting a circular UCA antenna being a portion out of UCAn applied to another communication link or channel such as i.e. another signal x out of j associated with another UCA antenna j out of UCA1-UCAn as depicted FIG. 3A reading on: transmitting traffic, using a second portion of the UCA antenna panel);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of RYU with teachings of Gil, since Gil enables procedures where placing as many UCAs as possible in a given area helps to improve the channel capacity (Gil Col 17 ln 24-25).
Regarding Claim 2. (Original) RYU in view of Gil teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore RYU teaches: wherein the first wireless node comprises an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) node and the second wireless node comprises a child IAB node of the first wireless node (RY FIG. 2 ¶0040 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: as depicted in FIG. 2 & ¶er ¶0040 i.e. IAB-nodes 204 (or IAB-donor nodes 202) IAB-nodes 204 (e.g., and/or IAB-donor nodes) i.e. IAB-donor nodes 202 reads on: wherein the first wireless node comprises an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) node, and per FIG. 2 as depicted in ¶0040 i.e. IAB-nodes 204 reads on: and the second wireless node comprises a child IAB node of the first wireless node ).
Regarding Claim 3. (Original) RYU in view of Gil teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore RYU teaches: wherein the first wireless node transmits to the second wireless node on the backhaul link (RYU FIG.1, FIG. 2 & FIG. 5 & ¶0028 See Claim 1; ¶0035 See Claim 1; ¶0040 See Claim 1; ¶0046 See Claim 1; ¶0062 See Claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per FIG. 1 & ¶0028 i.e. the base stations 105 may communicate with one another as part of an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network, as described further herein, where a first base station 105 can have an access node function (AN-F) for providing access to a second base station 105 (e.g., over a backhaul link), and the second base station 105 can have both of a UE function (UE-F) i.e. to communicate with the first base station 105 (e.g., over the backhaul link) and an AN-F to communicate with another downstream base station 105 (e.g., over another backhaul link) reads on: wherein the first wireless node transmits to the second wireless node i.e. per ¶0046 i.e. the base station 105 can communicate with, i.e. base stations 105. Furthermore, per FIG. 1 & ¶0028 i.e. the backhaul link applied to per ¶0050 i.e. dotted lines can represent access links between IAB-nodes 204 (or IAB-donor nodes 202) reads on: the backhaul link.).
RYU does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): transmits with an orbital angular momentum (OAM) mode when transmitting traffic
furthermore Gil teaches: wherein the first wireless node transmits with an orbital angular momentum (OAM) mode when transmitting traffic to the second wireless node (Gil FIG. 2 & FIG. 3A, Col 3 (ln 35-43) See claim 1; Col 3 (ln 61-64) See claim 1; FIG. 3B & Col 4 (ln 46, 54-57) […] an OAM-based receiver 200 […] The receiving antenna 210 includes M.sub.r receive UCA antennas. The receiving antenna 210 may receive OAM multimode signals. The receiving antenna 210 is a radial concentric UCA structure antenna.
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per Col 3 (ln 61-64) i.e. an OAM-based transmitter 100. The transmitter 100 includes a power allocator 110, a splitter 120, a modulator 130, and a transmitting antenna 140. The transmitter 100 transmits j signals x on the basis of an input signal s reads on: wherein the first wireless node transmits, where furthermore FIG. 3A depicts UCAj in i.e. an OAM-based transmitter 100 reads on: with an orbital angular momentum (OAM) mode when transmitting traffic. Per FIG. 3B & Col 4 (ln 46, 54-57) i.e. an OAM-based receiver 200 where i.e. The receiving antenna 210 may receive OAM multimode signals reads on: to the second wireless node);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of RYU in view of Gil, further with the teachings of Gil, since Gil enables procedures where placing as many UCAs as possible in a given area helps to improve the channel capacity (Gil Col 17 ln 24-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 4-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable contingent upon or subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) that the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as presented by applicant and referenced herein,
(2) that all independent claims were amended with similar, identical and parallel features and amendments in the independent claims representing identical features were submitted in a formal response,
(3) that the claim limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations,
(4) that all pending issues associated with the claims including:
(a) clarifying applicable issues related with claim objections under minor informalities and 112 (b) rejections,
(b) issues related with the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations, including the independent claims,
are all acceptably resolved, and do not result in a case where, given the scope of any applicant claimed amendments and/or arguments, examination would require further consideration and search.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4. (Original) The method of claim 3, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein: the first portion of the UCA panel comprises a first number of antenna rings in an inner region and a middle region of the UCA antenna panel; and the second portion of the UCA panel comprises a second number of antenna rings in an outer region and a middle region of the UCA antenna panel.”
Regarding Claim 5. (Original) The method of claim 4, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the first wireless node indicates the first number of antenna rings, to the second wireless node, as a largest antenna ring for each channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource or CSI-RS port.”
Regarding Claim 6. (Original) The method of claim 4, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the first wireless node indicates the second number of antenna rings, to the second wireless node, per OAM mode, as a smallest antenna ring for each OAM mode.”
Regarding Claim 7. (Original) The method of claim 4, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein: antenna rings in the outer region have a same number of antenna elements, with different spacings between antenna elements at different rings; antenna rings in the middle region have a same number of antenna elements, with different spacings between antenna elements at different rings; and antenna rings in the inner region have substantially uniform antenna spacing”.
Regarding Claim 8. (Original) The method of claim 4, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein at least one antenna ring of the UCA antenna panel is connected to multiple RF chains.”
Regarding Claim 9. (Original) The method of claim 8, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the RF chains are used to transmit one or more backhaul streams with different OAM modes in the outer region or middle region.”
Regarding Claim 10. (Original) The method of claim 8, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the RF chains are used to transmit one or more access streams with different access beams in the inner region or middle region.”
Regarding Claim 11. (Original) The method of claim 8, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the RF chains are used to transmit one or more backhaul streams and one or more access streams with different OAM modes and different access beams in the middle region.”
Regarding Claim 12. (Original) The method of claim 4, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “comprising: configuring a set of antenna rings for an OAM receiver; and transmitting an indication of the configuration to the second wireless node.”
Regarding Claim 13. (Original) The method of claim 12, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein all OAM modes use a same set of antenna rings.”
Regarding Claim 14. (Original) The method of claim 12, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein different OAM modes use different sets of antenna rings.”
Regarding Claim 15. (Original) The method of claim 12, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein: each OAM mode is associated with a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS resource) with multiple ports; and each of the multiple ports is associated with an antenna ring.”
Regarding Claim 16. (Original) The method of claim 4, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “further comprising reconfiguring at least one antenna ring border between a first set of antenna rings used for backhaul and a first set of antenna rings used for access.”
Regarding Claim 17. (Original) The method of claim 16, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein all OAM modes share a common antenna ring border.”
Regarding Claim 18. (Original) The method of claim 16, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein each OAM mode has its own antenna ring border.”
Regarding Claim 19. (Original) The method of claim 16, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “further comprising transmitting an indication, to the second wireless node, of the antenna ring border as a smallest antenna ring outside the antenna ring border.”
Regarding Claim 20. (Original) The method of claim 19 further comprising receiving, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “from the second wireless node, an indication of suitable antenna rings or inter-ring precoding weights selected based on the indication.”
Regarding Claim 21. (Original) The method of claim 4, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “further comprising indicating, to the UE, a configuration of antenna resources for each channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource or port.”
Regarding Claim 22. (Original) The method of claim 21, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the configuration includes at least one of: a number of antenna rings, a radius of each ring, a number of antenna elements at each ring, or a number of maximum ports used for this CSI-RS resource or port at each ring.”
Regarding Claim 23. (Original) The method of claim 16, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the reconfiguring is based on a traffic change to at least one of backhaul traffic or access traffic.”
Regarding Claim 24. (Original) The method of claim 23, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein a change associated with the reconfiguring is indicated as a change to the middle region.”
Regarding Claim 25. (Original) The method of claim 24, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the change is indicated as a largest antenna ring inside the antenna ring border.”
Please note: The examiner notes the above limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitation, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALICK A SOHRAB whose telephone number is (571)272-4347. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fri 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached on (571) 272-7884. 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.
/M.A.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2414
09/02/2026
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights