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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) s 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorday U.S. Patent No.6,665,51) hereinafter Gorday in view of Basu Mallick et al (US20170317740 A1) hereinafter Basu and in further view of Couper (US Patent No. 8,131,210) hereinafter Couper.
Per claim 1 and 6, Gorday discloses a wireless relay device/method (see figure 1, “user A”)comprising: a transmitting unit (primary transceiver) configured to transmit, to a base station (item 12), a first signal ( “all points bulltin”)for allowing the base station to identify the wireless relay device ( (1)); a receiving unit (primary transceiver) configured to receive, from the base station, a second signal about a permission to operate as a wireless relay device; and a control unit configured to enable, when the receiving unit receives the second signal, a relay function that allows a signal received from the base station to be transmitted to a terminal and a signal received from the terminal to be transmitted to the base station (see column 5, lines 25-45).
Gorday doesn’t express teaches the base station sent a signal that permit the operation of a wireless relay device. Basu teaches such feature (see para. 210 and 211). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed invention in order to improve the management of the active partner(s).
Combination of Gorday and Basu does not expressly teach that the first signal comprises information about a buildable area. Couper teaches a method of developing and deploying additional repeaters with optimized location or area after a first repeater is utilized (see abstract, figure 2 and corresponding paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Couper with Gorday and Basu’s system in order to increase the coverage of a service area with best optimized location for additional repeaters.
Per claim 2, Gorday further teaches that the transmitting unit is further configured to transmit, to the base station, a third signal that represents a request for enabling the relay function (see column 5 and lines 40 -50, actively communicating with the base station).
Per claim 3, Gorday further teaches that the transmitting unit is further configured to includes, in the first signal, information about a channel state in communication between the wireless relay device and the base station or the terminal (see column 5 and lines 14-25, channel strength).
Per claim 4, Gorday further teaches that the receiving unit is further configured toobtain, from the second signal, a parameter related to a beam configuration that is applicable to the relay function (see figure 4 and column 3 and line 50-column 4 and lines 30, potential diversity to increase the gain of the receiver by utilizing the primary and second protocol (two beams)).
Per claim 5, Gorday further teaches that the transmitting unit is further configured to transmit, to the base station, the first signal with the third signal included therein (see figures 1 and 4, column 5 and lines 25-50).
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 YUWEN PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7855. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
YUWEN . PAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights