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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 06/10/2024.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. The claims 1-5 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.
7. 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 limitations are: communication unit and transmission unit in claims 1 and 4; transmission unit in claims 2-3 and 5.
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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the communication unit is a transceiver and the transmission unit is a transmitter. Therefore, the communication unit and the transmission unit are definite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
11. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navid ABEDINI et al. (US 2021/0306065 A1), hereinafter ABEDINI.
For claim 1, ABEDINI teaches a terminal (ABEDINI, Fig. 2 item 120) comprising:
a communication unit (ABEDINI, Fig. 2 item 280) configured to transmit and receive radio waves to and from a base station by using relaying by a plurality of wireless relay devices (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 6 and 90 teach a base station
communicating with terminal devices through a plurality of repeaters.); and
a transmission unit (ABEDINI, Fig. 2 item 252) configured to transmit control information indicating activation or deactivation of a relaying function of the plurality of wireless relay devices to the wireless relay devices (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 84-87 teach transmitting configurations to a group of repeaters, comprising an on-off configuration indicating whether the repeater is to forward signals or refrain from forwarding signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in ABEDINI to have transmitting control information indicating activation or deactivation of a relaying function of the plurality of wireless relay devices to the wireless relay devices.),
wherein the transmission unit transmits the control information via an upper layer configuration (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 87-88 teach transmitting the configurations using a system information block, SIB, which can be considered an upper layer configuration) or a physical layer control signal (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraph 85 teach transmitting the configurations using downlink control information, DCI.).
For claim 2, ABEDINI further teaches the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control information is information for configuring a period of activation or deactivation and the period is common to the plurality of wireless relay devices in a case where the transmission unit transmits the control information via the upper layer configuration (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraph 84 teach time resources in which to adopt the beamforming and switching configurations. Paragraph 87 further teaches SIB to a group of repeaters.).
For claim 3, ABEDINI further teaches the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control information is same information that is common to the plurality of wireless relay devices in a case where the transmission unit transmits the control information via the physical layer control signal (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraph 84 teach time resources in which to adopt the beamforming and switching configurations. Paragraph 87 further teaches SIB to a group of repeaters.).
For claim 4, ABEDINI teaches a base station (ABEDINI, Fig. 2 item 110) comprising:
a communication unit (ABEDINI, Fig. 2 item 240) configured to transmit and receive radio waves to and from a terminal by using relaying by a plurality of wireless relay devices (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 6 and 90 teach a base station
communicating with terminal devices through a plurality of repeaters.); and
a transmission unit (ABEDINI, Fig. 2 item 234) configured to transmit control information indicating activation or deactivation of a relaying function of the plurality of wireless relay devices to the wireless relay devices (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 84-87 teach transmitting configurations to a group of repeaters, comprising an on-off configuration indicating whether the repeater is to forward signals or refrain from forwarding signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in ABEDINI to have transmitting control information indicating activation or deactivation of a relaying function of the plurality of wireless relay devices to the wireless relay devices.),
wherein the transmission unit transmits the control information via an upper layer configuration (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 87-88 teach transmitting the configurations using a system information block, SIB, which can be considered an upper layer configuration) or a physical layer control signal (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraph 85 teach transmitting the configurations using downlink control information, DCI.).
For claim 5, ABEDINI further teaches the base station as claimed in claim 4, wherein the control information is information for configuring a period of activation or deactivation and the period is common to the plurality of wireless relay devices in a case where the transmission unit transmits the control information via the upper layer configuration (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraph 84 teach time resources in which to adopt the beamforming and switching configurations. Paragraph 87 further teaches SIB to a group of repeaters.).
For claim 6, ABEDINI teaches a communication method performed by a terminal (ABEDINI, Fig. 2 item 120) the communication method comprising:
transmitting and receiving radio waves to and from a base station by using relaying by a plurality of wireless relay devices (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 6 and 90 teach a base station communicating with terminal devices through a plurality of repeaters.); and
transmitting control information indicating activation or deactivation of a relaying function of the plurality of wireless relay devices to the wireless relay devices (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 84-87 teach transmitting configurations to a group of repeaters, comprising an on-off configuration indicating whether the repeater is to forward signals or refrain from forwarding signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in ABEDINI to have transmitting control information indicating activation or deactivation of a relaying function of the plurality of wireless relay devices to the wireless relay devices.),
wherein the transmission unit transmits the control information via an upper layer configuration (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 87-88 teach transmitting the configurations using a system information block, SIB, which can be considered an upper layer configuration) or a physical layer control signal (ABEDINI, Fig. 4 and paragraph 85 teach transmitting the configurations using downlink control information, DCI.).
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILL W LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8749. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/WILL W LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights