CTNF 18/713,612 CTNF 84804 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 8-15 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. For Claim 8, “usage time information for a beam” should be corrected to --- usage time information for the beam--- to correct antecedent basis. Remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14, and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abedini et al. (US 2022/0053486) . For Claims 1, 31, and 33 , Abedini teaches a beam indication method for a smart repeater, performed by a smart repeater, a communication device comprising a processor and a memory having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, the device is caused to execute a method (see paragraph 7), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing instructions (see paragraph 7, 208); the method comprising: receiving downlink control information (DCI) scrambled by a preset radio network temporary identifier (RNTI), wherein the DCI is at least used for indicating information of a beam to be used by the smart repeater (see paragraphs 163, 181, 199). For Claims 7, 32, and 34 , Abedini teaches a beam indication method for a smart repeater, performed by a network device, a communication device comprising a processor and a memory having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, the device is caused to perform the method (see paragraph 9), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing instructions (see paragraph 9, 208); the method comprising: scrambling downlink control information (DCI) by using a preset radio network temporary identifier (RNTI), wherein the DCI is at least used for indicating information of a beam to be used by the smart repeater (see paragraphs 163, 181, 199); and sending scrambled DCI to the smart repeater (see paragraphs 163, 181, 199). For Claims 2 and 8 , Abedini teaches the method, wherein the information of the beam (paragraph 181) comprises at least one of: an identification of the beam (see paragraphs 185, 187); usage time information for the beam (see paragraphs 185, 187); a link corresponding to the beam (see paragraphs 185, 187); or an identification of a beam configuration. For Claims 3 and 9 , Abedini teaches the method, wherein the identification of the beam is any one of: identifications of a group of beams, wherein two beams in the group of beams correspond to a service link and a feeder link respectively (see paragraph 185); an identification of one beam; or identifications of a plurality of beams (see paragraph 185). For Claims 4 and 10 , Abedini teaches the method, further comprising: determining the link corresponding to the beam to be used based on the RNTI and/or a value of a preset bit in the DCI (see paragraphs 196, 202: link; paragraphs 199, 264-266: configuration of repeater). For Claims 5 and 13 , Abedini teaches the method, wherein the usage time information for the beam is at least one of: a starting time location for the beam, a usage time duration for the beam, and an index corresponding to one time domain resource in a list of time domain resources (see paragraphs 187, 192, 242-243). For Claims 6 and 14 , Abedini teaches the method, further comprising: receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message, wherein the RRC message comprises at least one time domain resource (see paragraphs 163, 197, 241: symbol level, beamforming). For Claim 11 , Abedini teaches the method, wherein scrambling the DCI by using the preset RNTI comprises: in response to the link corresponding to the beam to be used being a service link, scrambling the DCI by the preset RNTI (see paragraphs 163, 181: RU-RNTI for repeater configuration; 185, 190: access link) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini et al. (US 2022/0053486) as applied to claim s 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Kusashima et al. (US 2024/0022315) . For Claim 12 , Abedini as applied above is not explicit as to, but Kusashima teaches the method, further comprising: in response to the link corresponding to the beam to be used being a feeder link, scrambling the DCI by a Cell RNTI (C-RNTI) (see paragraph 274). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the C-RNTI as in Kusashima when configuring feeder links as in Abedini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of ensuring appropriate configuration of the repeater as a repeater. For Claim 15 , Abedini as applied above is not explicit as to, but Kusashima teaches the method, wherein the DCI comprises frequency domain information for indicating the beam to be used by the smart repeater (see paragraphs 410-412). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the DCI as in Kusashima when providing configuration information to the repeater as in Abedini. The motivation would be to allocate the bandwidth for the repeater . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wanuga et al. (US 2024/0364414) teaches a base station configuring a repeater with time-frequency resources. Wang et al. (US 2022/0061021) teaches scrambling a DCI with a C-RNTI for a relay devices . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 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, 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. /CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 3/27/2026 /FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/713,612 Page 2 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/713,612 Page 3 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/713,612 Page 4 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/713,612 Page 5 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/713,612 Page 6 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/713,612 Page 7 Art Unit: 2466
Prosecution Insights