CTNF 18/718,655 CTNF 91641 DETAILED ACTION 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 6/11/2024 has been entered and considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION 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 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) 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): (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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 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), 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) is/are: “a reception unit configured to receive resources of a periodic signal and information related to a beam for each of the resources from a base station or a first wireless relay device and a transmission unit configured to” in claims 1-4. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. This structure is discussed in para. 0348 of Applicant’s published application and The functional blocks (function units) are realized by a freely-selected combination of hardware and/or software. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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). 35 USC 112 CLAIM REJECTIONS 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 6, they recite “a transmission unit configured to transmit the periodic signal to which a beam based on the information is applied to a second wireless relay device or a terminal, wherein the transmission unit does not transmit the information related to a beam for each of the resources to the second wireless relay device that is not directly connected to the terminal”. Therefore, it is not clear to the Examiner if the “or” at the end of the second limitation is an inclusive OR or an exclusive OR. If it is an exclusive OR, it would mean the periodic signal is transmitted to the second wireless relay device or the terminal but not both whereas an inclusive OR would be the periodic signal is sent to either one or both of them. Most of the examples provided in the specification do not include the second wireless relay device so it is hard to discern what is the true intent of the claims. In looking at Fig. 31-34, it appears that the transmission can go individually to each RIS/interim wireless relay device and also directly from the gNB/base station to the terminal/UE but it doesn’t show a transmission from the RISs/interim wireless relay device to the UE/terminal if the transmission has already been communicated to the UE/terminal. Based on this, it appears that it is an either or but not communication to both. Given that, there is confusion on what happens if the transmission from the wireless relay device goes to the terminal since the final limitation discusses a transmission not happening to the second wireless relay device. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the claims to read “a transmission unit configured to transmit the periodic signal to which a beam based on the information is applied to a second wireless relay device or a terminal, wherein if the periodic signal was transmitted to the terminal, no transmission occurs to the second wireless relay device and if the period signal was transmitted to the second wireless relay device, the transmission unit does not transmit the information related to a beam for each of the resources to the second wireless relay device that is not directly connected to the terminal”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US2021/0044412 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2024/0031044 A1) Regarding claims 1 and 6 , Li teaches a wireless relay device/method ( Abstract ), comprising: a reception unit configured to receive resources of a periodic signal from a base station or a first wireless relay device ( Figs. 5A-C and 6A-E; Paras. 0062, 0068, 0104-0107; the example periodic or semi-static repeater configuration may indicate that the repeater is to communicate with the BS and/or the UE via an uplink path and/or a downlink path using one or more Tx and/or Rx beams; i.e. the repeater reads on the wireless relay device and it receives configuration and signal periodically from the BS/Base station as shown in Fig. 6E ); and a transmission unit configured to transmit the periodic signal to which a beam based on the information is applied to a second wireless relay device or a terminal ( Figs. 5A-C and 6A-E; Paras. 0062, 0068, 0104-0107; the example periodic or semi-static repeater configuration may indicate that the repeater is to communicate with the BS and/or the UE via an uplink path and/or a downlink path using one or more Tx and/or Rx beams; i.e. the UE reads on the terminal and it receives configuration and signal periodically from the repeater/wireless relay device directed to the UE/terminal ); wherein the transmission unit does not transmit the information related to a beam for each of the resources to the second wireless relay device that is not directly connected to the terminal ( Figs. 5A-C and 6A-E; Paras. 0062, 0068, 0104-0107; the example periodic or semi-static repeater configuration may indicate that the repeater is to communicate with the BS and/or the UE via an uplink path and/or a downlink path using one or more Tx and/or Rx beams; i.e. there is no second wireless relay device as the repeater/wireless relay device connects directly to the UE/terminal so the information is not sent to the second wireless device as shown above in the 112 claim rejection ). However, while Li teaches different beams transmitted in different directions, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know that beams include a beam index ( Para. 0046 ), he does not specifically disclose information related to a beam for each of the resources. Kim teaches a method for measuring self-interference by a first node ( Abstract ). He further teaches information related to a beam for each of the resources ( Paras. 0099 and 0113; beam configuration may include at least one information such as a beam type for self-interference measurement, a beam index, or quasi co location (QCL) information. The IAB-donor 1004 may provide, to the IAB-node 1002, a self-interference channel measurement configuration set including a plurality of self-interference channel measurement configurations ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim with the teachings as in Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve coverage of terahertz band signals using new technologies such as metamaterial-based lenses and antennas, high-dimensional spatial multiplexing technology using orbital angular momentum (OAM), beamforming and reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) ( Kim at para. 0004 ). Regarding claim 2 , the combination of references Li and Kim teach the limitations of the previous claims. Li further teaches wherein the transmission unit transmits the information related to a beam for each of the resources to the second wireless relay device that is directly connected to the terminal ( Figs. 5A-C and 6A-E; Paras. 0062, 0068, 0104-0107; an IAB network may support a multi-hop network and/or a multi-hop wireless backhaul. Additionally, or alternatively, each node of an IAB network may use the same radio access technology (e.g., 5G/NR). Additionally, or alternatively, nodes of an IAB network may share resources for access links and backhaul links, such as time resources, frequency resources, spatial resources, and/or the like; i.e. in a multi-hop, each of the hops would need to know what UE/terminal the communications is being directed to ). Regarding claim 3 , the combination of references Li and Kim teach the limitations of the previous claims. Li further teaches wherein the transmission unit transmits the periodic signal to which a pre-configured default beam is applied to the second wireless relay device in a case where the wireless relay device itself is not directly connected to the terminal ( Figs. 5A-C and 6A-E; Paras. 0062, 0068, 0104- 0107; as illustrated in the example of FIG. 5A, an obstruction between a UE and a BS blocks or otherwise reduces the quality of a link between the BS and the UE. However, no obstructions or fewer obstructions exist between a repeater and the UE and, as a result, it is possible that communications between the repeater and the UE will have a higher quality than communications directly between the BS the UE; i.e. the highest quality/default beam would be selected to communicate with the UE/terminal ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US2021/0044412 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2024/0031044 A1) further in view of Yerramalli et al (US 2023/0078537 A1) . Regarding claim 4 , the combination of references Li and Kim teach the limitations of the previous claims. Li further teaches wherein the transmission unit determines a beam to be applied, based on the information and a priority related to a beam ( Figs. 5A-C and 6A-E; Paras. 0062, 0068, 0104-0107; as illustrated in the example of FIG. 5A, an obstruction between a UE and a BS blocks or otherwise reduces the quality of a link between the BS and the UE. However, no obstructions or fewer obstructions exist between a repeater and the UE and, as a result, it is possible that communications between the repeater and the UE will have a higher quality than communications directly between the BS the UE; i.e. the highest quality beam would be selected to communicate with the UE/terminal ). However, while Li teaches reducing latency ( Para. 0034 ), he does not specifically disclose a priority related to a beam. Yerramalli teaches wireless devices may communicate using reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS) for improved spatial diversity ( Abstract ). He further teaches a priority related to a beam ( Para. 0063; Support for ultra-reliable, low-latency functions may include prioritization of services, and such services may be used for public safety or general commercial applications ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Yerramalli with the combination of references Li and Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize beam management to minimize interference based on the RIS ( Yerramalli at para. 0003 ). Regarding claim 5 , the combination of references Li, Kim, and Yerramalli teach the limitations of the previous claims. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the priority related to the beam is based on types of the resources, indexes of the resources, or priorities of the resources ( Para. 0063; Support for ultra-reliable, low-latency functions may include prioritization of services, and such services may be used for public safety or general commercial applications ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT KRUEGER whose telephone number is (303)297-4238. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00 MT. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /KENT KRUEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 2 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 3 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 4 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 5 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 6 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 7 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 8 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 9 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 10 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/718,655 Page 11 Art Unit: 2474
Prosecution Insights