DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 8/3/2026. Claims 1-14, 27, 31-35 are pending.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of EP22150620.7, filed 6/25/2024. The assignee of record is Sony Group Corporation. The listed inventor(s) is/are: SHARMA, Vivek; AWAD, Yassin Aden; WAKABAYASHI, Hideji; WEI, Yuxin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 & 33 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims provided that all other rejections under 35 USC 101/112 (if any) are obviated upon upcoming amendments/arguments without raising new issues that necessitate further consideration/search.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
a.
PNG
media_image1.png
836
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the radio node making a determination that the radio node itself supports a network-controlled repeater functionality” in an un-reactive way. The claim does not limit the mode switch response to be independent and unreactive and the claim does not require that the radio node initiates the relevant signaling as argued) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
b.
PNG
media_image2.png
400
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
600
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
b. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Ray provides the indicator being transmitted from the first radio node, base station, to the repeater and Tek is brought in to show monitoring for a first indicator from the base station. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants statement that a selection concerning how communication is forwarded is not a determination. Determination is a broader term, a selection process is a type of a determination. Regarding the autonomous repeater mode, Ray ¶ 0143 teaches a repeater operates autonomous.
Response to Amendment
Examiner Note Re: Claim 14
The examiner interprets a repeater to be a physical hardware device as known in the art, please also see screenshot of Fig. 8 of Applicant’s Drawings below, thank you:
PNG
media_image4.png
494
952
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ray Chaudhuri et al. (US 20210194569 A1, published 6/24/2021; hereinafter Ray).
For Claim 27, Ray-Tek teaches the radio node for use in a telecommunications network, the telecommunications network comprising at least the radio node, a repeater and a terminal wherein the radio node is configured to provide a wireless access interface to communicate with the terminal and wherein the repeater is configured to amplify signals from the radio node and to the terminal, the radio node being configured to:
make a determination that the radio node supports a network-controlled repeater functionality (1. A method for wireless communications by a repeater, comprising: transmitting a mode switch message to a base station that indicates a request to switch from a first mode to a coverage expansion mode based at least in part on detection that amplification of a first signal received over a first bandwidth does not satisfy an amplification threshold; and transmitting, in accordance with the coverage expansion mode, an egress signal that is an amplified version of an ingress signal that is received over a second bandwidth that is narrower than the first bandwidth based at least in part on the mode switch message.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the mode switch message comprises: transmitting the mode switch message as a beacon signal.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a mode switch response message that instructs the repeater to operate in the coverage expansion mode based at least in part on the mode switch message.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting a second mode switch message to the base station that indicates a request to switch from the coverage expansion mode to the first mode; and transmitting a second egress signal that is an amplified version of a second ingress signal that is received over the first bandwidth based at least in part on the second mode switch message.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein transmitting the second mode switch message comprises: transmitting the second mode switch message as a beacon signal);
based on the determination, transmit a first indicator indicating that the radio node supports the network-controlled repeater functionality (Ray’s explanation of Fig. 4 found in Ray ¶ 0141-0153.
Please see screenshot of Ray Fig. 4 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image5.png
938
620
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) and
based on the determination, transmit control information for the repeater to configure a network-controlled repeater mode (Ray ¶ 0148 At 435, the repeater 405 may operate in the coverage expansion mode based on the instructions received from the base station 105-c at 430.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Tekgul et al. (US 20210075497 A1, published 3/11/2021; hereinafter Tek).
For Claim 1, Ray teaches a method of operating a repeater in a telecommunications network, the telecommunications network comprising at least a first radio node and a terminal wherein the first radio node is configured to provide a wireless access interface to communicate with the terminal (Please see screenshot of Ray Fig. 2 below and Ray ¶ 0110 repeater 205, UE 115, and BS 105.
PNG
media_image6.png
678
646
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), the method comprising:
the first radio node supports a network-controlled repeater functionality (Ray Claims 1-4
1. A method for wireless communications by a repeater, comprising: transmitting a mode switch message to a base station that indicates a request to switch from a first mode to a coverage expansion mode based at least in part on detection that amplification of a first signal received over a first bandwidth does not satisfy an amplification threshold; and transmitting, in accordance with the coverage expansion mode, an egress signal that is an amplified version of an ingress signal that is received over a second bandwidth that is narrower than the first bandwidth based at least in part on the mode switch message.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the mode switch message comprises: transmitting the mode switch message as a beacon signal.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a mode switch response message that instructs the repeater to operate in the coverage expansion mode based at least in part on the mode switch message.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting a second mode switch message to the base station that indicates a request to switch from the coverage expansion mode to the first mode; and transmitting a second egress signal that is an amplified version of a second ingress signal that is received over the first bandwidth based at least in part on the second mode switch message.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein transmitting the second mode switch message comprises: transmitting the second mode switch message as a beacon signal.);
receiving first control information from the first radio node (Ray’s explanation of Fig. 4 found in Ray ¶ 0141-0153.
Please see screenshot of Ray Fig. 4 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image5.png
938
620
media_image5.png
Greyscale
); and
configuring the repeater to operate in a network-controlled repeater mode for the first radio node and based on the first control information (Ray ¶ 0148 At 435, the repeater 405 may operate in the coverage expansion mode based on the instructions received from the base station 105-c at 430.); and
when the first indicator is not detected, configuring the repeater to operate in an autonomous repeater mode (Ray Fig. 4, ¶ 0143 without prior signaling the repeater 405 operates autonomous as amplifying repeater of first signal 410).
Ray does not explicitly teach monitoring for a first indicator, from the first radio node; when the first indicator is detected.
However, Tek teaches monitoring for a first indicator, from the first radio node; when the first indicator is detected (Tek ¶ 0081-0088, 0090, 0092. Tek ¶ 0092 The relay 602 may select its mode based on a QoS or traffic type for a communication between the base station 604 and the UE 606. The relay 602 may select an amplify-forward mode when the QoS or traffic type for the communication indicates that the communication is low latency traffic (e.g., URLLC traffic). The relay 602 may select a decode-forward mode when the QoS or traffic type does not indicate that the communication is low latency traffic (e.g., where the communication is eMBB traffic).
Please see screenshot of Tek Fig. 6 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image7.png
640
864
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
Tek and Ray are analogous art because they are both related to repeaters.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the relay techniques of Tek with the system of Ray to select a mode capable of providing latency or SNR within the indicated limits (Tek ¶ 0086).
For Claim 2, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 1 wherein configuring the repeater to operate in an autonomous repeater mode comprises configuring the repeater to operate in an autonomous repeater mode for the first radio node (Ray ¶ 0110-0115, 0154, Fig. 5).
For Claim 3, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 1 wherein, in a network-controlled repeater mode, the repeater operates as an active repeater wherein a radio configuration for the repeated transmissions is based on control information received from a radio node and in an autonomous repeater mode, the repeater operates as a passive repeater or as an active repeater configured without control information from a radio node (Ray ¶ 0110-0115, 0154, Fig. 5).
For Claim 4, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: monitoring for a second indicator from a second radio node of the telecommunications network that the second radio node supports the network-controlled repeater functionality (Tek Fig. 6 and related description); and when the first indicator is not detected and when the second indicator is detected: receiving second control information from the second radio node (Tek Fig. 6 and related description); and configuring the repeater to operate in a network-controlled repeater mode for the second radio node and based on the second control information (Tek Fig. 6 and related description).
For Claim 5, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: monitoring for a second indicator from a second radio node of the telecommunications network that the second radio node supports the network-controlled repeater functionality; and when the first indicator is not detected and when the second indicator is not detected: configuring the repeater to operate in an autonomous repeater mode for one of the first radio node and second radio node (Tek Fig. 6 and related description).
For Claim 6, Ray-Tek teaches the method of any preceding claim 1 wherein monitoring for the first indicator comprises monitoring for the first indicator in a system information transmission from the first radio node or in a downlink control information (DCI) transmission from the first radio node (Tek ¶ 0042).
For Claim 7, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 6 wherein the monitored system information transmission is at least one of a Master Information Block (MIB) transmission and a System Information Block (SIB) transmission (Tek ¶ 0047)
For Claim 9, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, once configured in a network-controlled repeater mode for the first radio node: measuring an interference level at the repeater (Ray ¶ 0125, 0128, 0157); sending an interference report to the first radio node based on the measuring of the interference level (Ray ¶ 0125, 0128, 0157).
For Claim 10, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 9 wherein measuring the interference level comprises: measuring Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) resources and identifying an SRS identifier (SRS ID) associated with the SRS resources; and including the SRS ID in the indication of the interference report (Ray ¶ 0125, 0128, 0157).
For Claim 11, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising: receiving, from the first radio node, a notification identifying a first terminal as being in the vicinity of the repeater; wherein measuring an interference level at the repeater comprises measuring a signal strength from the first terminal (Ray ¶ 0125, 0128, 0157).
For Claim 12, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a deactivation instruction, the deactivating instruction instructing the repeater to stop repeating signal; and in response to the deactivation instruction, exiting the network-controlled repeater mode and stopping the repeating of signals (Tek ¶ 0038).
For Claim 13, Ray-Tek teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the first radio node is at least one of a base station, a gNodeB (gNB), a relay node, an IAB node and a terminal (Ray ¶ 0061).
For Claim(s) 14, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 31, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 32, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Sampath et al. (US 20210068050 A1, published 3/4/2021; hereinafter Sam).
For Claim 34, Ray teaches the radio node according to claim 27, Ray does not explicitly teach wherein the radio node is configured to broadcast the first indicator to notify a repeater that the radio node supports the network- controlled repeater functionality.
However, Sam teaches wherein the radio node is configured to broadcast the first indicator to notify a repeater that the radio node supports the network-controlled repeater functionality (Sam ¶ 0009 transmitting broadcast information indicating that the BS supports wireless devices that are capable of acting as repeaters).
Sam and Ray are analogous art because they are both related to repeaters.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the broadcast techniques of Sam with the system of Ray to initialize an enhanced repeater performing operations (Sam ¶ 0092).
For Claim 35, Ray-Sam teaches the radio node according to claim 34, wherein the first indicator is transmitted in a system information transmission, the system information transmission being at least one of a Master Information Block (MIB) transmission and a System Information Block (SIB) transmission (Sam ¶ 0096 SIB).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached on 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights