Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 03/23/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1, 17-20, 22, 28 and 33-34 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, applicant mainly argues for the amended claim limitations “wherein one beam indicated in the one piece of beam information is both a transmitting beam used by the first communication node on the first link and a receiving beam used by the first communication node on the first link”.
However, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly cited prior art in combining with the previously applied prior art. It’s suggested to recite the claim limitations in a way that holds a patentable weight over the prior art.
In fact, claim does not specifically define what are involved in indication for “the one piece of beam information” for a transmitting beam and a receiving beam. Does it mean that the transmitting beam and the receiving beam are same in what way or rather they are different? To show the obviousness of the claim limitations, three reasonable claim interpretation will be applied from each prior art in accordance with MPEP 2111. See greater details in the claim rejection set forth below.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1, 17-20, 22, 28 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0366363 A1 in view of Rofougaran et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0403689 A1 and A.
Claim 1
Li discloses A beam determination method (fig. 1-13 for joint beam management), the method being applied to a first communication node (mmW repeater 140 in fig. 5-13) and comprising:
receiving configuration information (750 in fig. 7 for sending beam management configuration from base station 110) sent by a second communication node (base station 110 in fig. 5-13 and see 1010 in fig. 10); and
PNG
media_image1.png
644
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining, according to the configuration information, a beam used by the first communication node (a configuration indicating a resource set to be used by mmW repeater for beam management in step 1010 of fig. 10);
PNG
media_image2.png
612
906
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the first communication node is a repeater (mmW repeater 140 in fig. 5-13), and the second communication node is a base station (base station 110 in fig. 5-13);
wherein the configuration information comprises at least one resource set (resource set in 705 in fig. 7), a resource group (consider resource as frequency, time or transmission time interval TTI as explained par. 0098, see MPEP 2111), and beam pair corresponding to the resource group (first beam pair 725 and second beam pair 730 in fig. 7 in par. 0094 and see Tx beam and Rx beam as depicted in fig. 7-9), wherein each of the at least one resource set comprises the resource group (resource sets in fig. 7-8 includes frequency resource, a time resource or TTI as explained in par. 0094-0098 or see fig. 9 for TTI as one group for Tx and Rx), and one resource group corresponds to one piece of beam wherein the beam is used by the first communication node on a first link between the first communication node and a terminal (120 UE in fig. 5-13, UE 120 and repeater 140 will use the second beam pair 730 in fig. 7 for communication); and
wherein a beam (beam pair 730 in fig. 7, 825 in fig. 8 and Tx beam and Rx beam in fig. 9) comprised in the beam pair is both a transmitting beam (Tx1 beam in fig. 9) used by the first communication node on the first link and a receiving beam (Rx1 in fig. 9) used by the first communication node on the first link (par. 0102 & 0123 for configuring the repeater and UE with a set of beams Rx beam and Tx beam).
Although Li does not explicitly disclose “one resource group corresponds to one piece of beam information; and one piece of beam information; wherein one beam indicated in the one piece of beam information a beam comprised in the beam information is both a transmitting beam used by the first communication node on the first link and a receiving beam used by the first communication node on the first link.”, claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
PNG
media_image3.png
544
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “one resource group corresponds to one piece of beam information; and one piece of beam information”, initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved to indicate or represent “one piece of beam information” for both a transmitting beam and a receiving beam. Indeed, Li depicts fig. 7-9 for frequency resource, time resource or TTi or timeslot (par. 0098) for Tx beam and Rx beam for communicating between the repeater and the UE (see par. 0102, 0120-0123). “one piece of beam information” could be reasonably interpreted as Rx beam and Tx beam in fig. 7-9 of Li and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Rofougaran teaches beam information as beam 1 for CPE 1 and beam 2 for CPE 2 (fig. 1D-F and par. 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify joint beam management of Li by providing a repeater device for 5G New Radio NR as taught in Rofougaran. Such a modification would have provided a repeater device to steer the pencil beam from a base station frequently and accurately toward a UE so that the repeater would facilitate and contribute the signal path and the transmission path to cover fully in 5G NR cellular network as suggested in par. 0006-0008 of Rofougaran.
PNG
media_image4.png
588
850
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lastly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitations “wherein one beam indicated in the one piece of beam information a beam comprised in the beam information is both a transmitting beam used by the first communication node on the first link and a receiving beam used by the first communication node on the first link”, recall that Li depicts fig. 8-9 for base station for sending beam management configuration to repeater for beam information such that a first beam pair for transmitting and receiving beams with UE and a second beam pair for transmitting and receiving beam pair with the base station (see fig. 8-9 for repeater 140, base station 110 and UE 120, 805, 825 and 830). What’s more, Rofougaran discloses the base station for configuring beam for an active repeater device (par. 0047, 0050) used the beam for beamforming (par. 0055), beam 1 with time slot 1 (fig. 1D), and the time slot 1 for multiplexing the beams 1-4 at the same time (fig. 1F). With the teaching mentioned above, either separately or in combination, Li and Rofougaran would have rendered amended claim limitations obvious unless claim specifically recite what are required to be the one piece of beam information. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein.
PNG
media_image5.png
514
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In particular, Abedini teaches beam configuration from BS to repeater R for beam information (1314 of fig. 13) for transmitting and receiving beams between BS and repeater R, and other beam information for transmitting and receiving beams between repeater R and UE1-2 (1310 and 1312 in fig. 13). Additionally, see fig. 14 of Abedini for repeater for selecting beam configuration for fronthaul link FL for receiving and transmitting beam between BS and the repeater R (1410-1412 in fig. 14) and selecting beam configuration for access link AL between repeater, UE and BS (1418-1426 in fig. 14).
PNG
media_image6.png
610
806
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify joint beam management of Li in view of Rofougaran by providing autonomous beam configuration for a repeater as taught in Abedini to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a repeater device to relay communication traffic so that the coverage of a wireless network could be effectively extended as suggested in par. 0003-0005 of Abedini.
Claim 17
Li discloses a beam determination method (fig. 1-13 for beam management), the method being applied to a second communication node (base station 110 in fig. 5-13) and comprising:
determining configuration information (fig. 7-10, par. 0102, the base station may configure the repeater with a set of beams); and
sending the configuration information to a first communication node (mmW repeater 140 in fig. 3-13) so that the first communication node determines, according to the configuration information (beam pairs in fig. 7-9 and see indication in configuration explained in par. 0092-0094), a beam to use (725 in fig. 7 and 730 in fig. 7), wherein the beam is used by the first communication node on a first link (beam pair 730 in fig. 7 and beam pair 825 in fig. 8 to be used as the link between the repeater and the UE) between the first communication node and a terminal (UE 120 in fig. 3-13);
wherein the configuration information comprises at least one resource set, a resource group (resource set in 705 in fig. 7), and beams corresponding to the resource group (consider resource as frequency, time or transmission time interval TTI as explained par. 0098, see MPEP 2111), wherein each of the at least one resource set comprises the resource group (resource sets in fig. 7-8 includes frequency resource, a time resource or TTI as explained in par. 0094-0098 or see fig. 9 for TTI as one group for Tx and Rx), and one resource group corresponds to one piece of beam wherein the beam is used by the first communication node on a first link between the first communication node and a terminal (120 UE in fig. 5-13, UE 120 and repeater 140 will use the second beam pair 730 in fig. 7 for communication); and
wherein a beam (beam pair 730 in fig. 7, 825 in fig. 8 and Tx beam and Rx beam in fig. 9) comprised in the beam information is both a transmitting beam (Tx beam in fig. 9) used by the first communication node on the first link and a receiving beam (Rx beam in fig. 9) used by the first communication node on the first link (par. 0102 & 0123 for configuring the repeater and UE with a set of beams Rx beam and Tx beam); and
wherein the first communication node is a repeater (mmW repeater 140 in fig. 5-13), and the second communication node is a base station (base station 110 in fig. 5-13).
Although Li does not explicitly disclose “one resource group corresponds to one piece of beam information; and one piece of beam information; wherein one beam indicated in the one piece of beam information a beam comprised in the beam information is both a transmitting beam used by the first communication node on the first link and a receiving beam used by the first communication node on the first link.”, claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “one resource group corresponds to one piece of beam information; and one piece of beam information”, initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved to indicate or represent “one piece of beam information” for both a transmitting beam and a receiving beam. Indeed, Li depicts fig. 7-9 for frequency resource, time resource or TTi or timeslot (par. 0098) for Tx beam and Rx beam for communicating between the repeater and the UE (see par. 0102, 0120-0123). “one piece of beam information” could be reasonably interpreted as Rx beam and Tx beam in fig. 7-9 of Li and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Rofougaran teaches beam information as beam 1 for CPE 1 and beam 2 for CPE 2 (fig. 1D-F and par. 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify joint beam management of Li by providing a repeater device for 5G New Radio NR as taught in Rofougaran. Such a modification would have provided a repeater device to steer the pencil beam from a base station frequently and accurately toward a UE so that the repeater would facilitate and contribute the signal path and the transmission path to cover fully in 5G NR cellular network as suggested in par. 0006-0008 of Rofougaran.
Lastly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitations “wherein one beam indicated in the one piece of beam information a beam comprised in the beam information is both a transmitting beam used by the first communication node on the first link and a receiving beam used by the first communication node on the first link”, recall that Li depicts fig. 8-9 for base station for sending beam management configuration to repeater for beam information such that a first beam pair for transmitting and receiving beams with UE and a second beam pair for transmitting and receiving beam pair with the base station (see fig. 8-9 for repeater 140, base station 110 and UE 120, 805, 825 and 830). What’s more, Rofougaran discloses the base station for configuring beam for an active repeater device (par. 0047, 0050) used the beam for beamforming (par. 0055), beam 1 with time slot 1 (fig. 1D), and the time slot 1 for multiplexing the beams 1-4 at the same time (fig. 1F). With the teaching mentioned above, either separately or in combination, Li and Rofougaran would have rendered amended claim limitations obvious unless claim specifically recite what are required to be the one piece of beam information. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein.
In particular, Abedini teaches beam configuration from BS to repeater R for beam information (1314 of fig. 13) for transmitting and receiving beams between BS and repeater R, and other beam information for transmitting and receiving beams between repeater R and UE1-2 (1310 and 1312 in fig. 13). Additionally, see fig. 14 of Abedini for repeater for selecting beam configuration for fronthaul link FL for receiving and transmitting beam between BS and the repeater R (1410-1412 in fig. 14) and selecting beam configuration for access link AL between repeater, UE and BS (1418-1426 in fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify joint beam management of Li in view of Rofougaran by providing autonomous beam configuration for a repeater as taught in Abedini to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a repeater device to relay communication traffic so that the coverage of a wireless network could be effectively extended as suggested in par. 0003-0005 of Abedini.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is a communication device claim corresponding to method claim 1. All of the limitation of claim 18 are found reciting for the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 18 can be considered obvious by the rationales applied in the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
PNG
media_image7.png
586
732
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Li discloses a communication device (a mmW repeater in fig. 3-13), comprising a communication module (communication component 340 in fig. 3), a memory (memory in par. 0066), and at least one processor (controller 330 in fig. 3); wherein the communication module is configured to perform a communicative interaction (backhaul beam pairs in fig. 6) between a first communication node (mmW repeater 140 in fig. 3-13) and a second communication node (base station 110 in fig. 2-13); the memory is configured to store at least one program (par. 0066 explains the controller or a processor and a memory to perform aspects of the steps depicted in fig. 6-13).
Claim 19
Claim 19 is a computer product claim corresponding to method claim 1. All of the limitation of claim 19 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 can be considered obvious by the rationales applied in the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
Claim 20
Li, in view of Rofougaran and Abedini, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication node uses a same beam for transmission and reception on the first link (Li, a single beam in par. 0093 and see fig. 6-9; Rofougaran, designating beam 1 for uplink and downlink and time division duplex TDD as explained in par. 0169 for uplink and downlink; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 22
Li, in view of Rofougaran and Abedini, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the configuration information further comprises a resource group configuration parameter (Li, indication in configuration explained in par. 0093-0096 such as beamwidth, reference signal, TTI; Rofougaran, fig. 1D-F), and the resource group configuration parameter comprises at least one of the following: a resource group configuration period, a subcarrier spacing, a time unit offset, or a symbol corresponding to a resource group within a time unit (Li, in view of fig. 6-9, TTI, a slot, a frame, symbols explained in par. 0094, Rofougaran, Tx and Rx in fig. 1D-F, and subframe and slots and symbols in fig. 8C; for these reasons, the combined prior art meets the claim condition; check Markush Claims format in MPEP 2117).
Claim 28
Claim 28 is a method claim reciting the limitations of claim 22. All of the limitations of claim 28 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claim 22. Accordingly, claim 28 is considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 22 set forth above.
Claim 33
PNG
media_image8.png
604
838
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 33 is a communication device claim corresponding to method claim 17. All of the limitation of claim 33 are found reciting for the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations in claim 17. Accordingly, claim 33 can be considered obvious by the rationales applied in the rejection of claim 17 set forth above.
Additionally, Li discloses a communication device (base station 110 in fig. 2), comprising a communication module (communication unit 244 in fig. 2), a memory (memory 242 in fig. 2), and at least one processor (controller/processor 240 in fig. 2); wherein the communication module is configured to perform a communicative interaction (backhaul beam pairs in fig. 6) between a first communication node (mmW repeater 140 in fig. 3-13) and a second communication node (base station 110 in fig. 2-13); the memory is configured to store at least one program (par. 0052 explains a processor and a memory to perform aspects of the steps depicted in fig. 6-13).
Claim 34
Claim 34 is a computer product claim corresponding to method claim 17. All of the limitation of claim 34 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claim 17. Accordingly, claim 34 can be considered obvious by the rationales applied in the rejection of claim 17 set forth above.
Conclusion
6. 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.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights