DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on 03 April 2025 in which claims 7-15 are currently pending and claims 1-6 have been cancelled.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 17 July 2024, 29 October 2025, have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
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 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.
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) 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a relay unit”, “a reception unit”, a control unit” in claims 7-13; “a transmission unit”, “a control unit” in claim 15.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, it is suggested to spell out the acronym “SS/PBCH” in line 3.
Regarding claim 10, it is suggested to spell out the acronym “TDD-UL” in line 3.
Regarding claim 15, the punctuation of the claimed limitation “establish a connection between: the cell; and a wireless relay device” is awkward.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7-9, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanri et al. (PG Pub US 2018/0279205 A1) in view of Abedini et al. (PG Pub US 2022/0053433 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Nanri discloses a wireless relay device and a communication method.
a relay unit (relay apparatus 20, fig. 1) configured to transfer a wireless signal between a base station and a terminal (“terminal devices 10a which exist in a service area of a cell (communication-enabled range) formed by the relay apparatus 20 and are connected to the relay apparatus 20, and a terminal device 10b which exists in a service area of a cell formed by the donor base station 30 and is connected to the donor base station 30” [0031]);
a reception unit (relay apparatus 20, fig. 1) configured to receive control information from the base station (“When receiving the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 (cell restriction instructions), the relay apparatus” [0057]); and
a control unit (relay apparatus 20, fig. 1) configured to transfer of the wireless signal between the base station and the terminal, based on the control information (“when the relay apparatus 20 receives the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 from the donor base station 30, it does not generate the random number and does not perform the judgment on whether or not it can exist in the service area of the cell formed by the donor base station 30. Instead, the relay apparatus 20 transmits the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 received from the donor base station 30 to all the terminal devices 10a1, 10a2, 10a3 which exist in the service area of the cell formed by the relay apparatus 20 itself” [0062]),
the reception unit receives broadcast information including information indicating restriction of an access by the terminal to a cell of the base station from the base station (““cellBarred” included in SIB1 of the received broadcast information is “barred,”” [0059], “receiving the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 (cell restriction instructions)” [0057]), and
the reception unit ignores the information (“It is determined to not execute the aforementioned cell restriction operation in response to the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 received from the donor base station 30” [0058]).
However, Nanri does not explicitly disclose amplify and control amplification.
Nevertheless, Abedini discloses “relay nodes that amplify-and-forward all RF signals that they receive” [0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control amplification because “The RU 1210 may provide relay (e.g., reception, amplification, and transmission) functionality to enable signals from the network access node 1202 to reach the UE 1206 and/or to enable signals from the UE 1206 to reach the network access node 1202” [0203].
Regarding claim 8, Nanri, Abedini discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Nanri discloses the relay unit transfers the wireless signal between the base station and the terminal in a cell even in a case where the broadcast information including the information is received by the reception unit (“even if “cellBarred” included in SIB1 of the received broadcast information is “barred,” [0059], “The relay apparatus 20 transmits (including transfer) the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 received from the donor base station 30 to the terminal devices 10a which exist in the service area of the cell formed by the relay apparatus 20 itself” [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Nanri, Abedini discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Abedini discloses the control unit performs time synchronization with a cell that is accommodated by the base station, based on an SS/PBCH block (“synchronization signaling (e.g., SSBs), a PBCH, RMSI, and other information (e.g., an indication that the network access node 3902 supports repeater devices) (e.g., transmitting SS/PBCH/RMSI/RptrSupportInd) to the repeater device 3904 at 3906. This may enable the repeater device 3904 to synchronize to the network access node 3902 and obtain initial access information” [0434]).
Regarding claim 15, Nanri discloses a base station.
a transmission unit (donor eNB 30, fig. 1) configured to broadcast broadcast information including information indicating restriction of an access by a terminal to a cell of the base station (““cellBarred” included in SIB1 of the received broadcast information is “barred,”” [0059], “receiving the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 (cell restriction instructions)” [0057]); and
a control unit (donor eNB 30, fig. 1) configured to establish a connection between: the cell; and a wireless relay device that amplifies and transfers a wireless signal between the base station and the terminal even in a case of broadcasting the information (“when the relay apparatus 20 receives the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 from the donor base station 30, it does not generate the random number and does not perform the judgment on whether or not it can exist in the service area of the cell formed by the donor base station 30. Instead, the relay apparatus 20 transmits the broadcast information including SIB1 and SIB2 received from the donor base station 30 to all the terminal devices 10a1, 10a2, 10a3 which exist in the service area of the cell formed by the relay apparatus 20 itself” [0062]).
However, Nanri does not explicitly disclose amplifies a signal.
Nevertheless, Abedini discloses “relay nodes that amplify-and-forward all RF signals that they receive” [0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to amplify a signal because “The RU 1210 may provide relay (e.g., reception, amplification, and transmission) functionality to enable signals from the network access node 1202 to reach the UE 1206 and/or to enable signals from the UE 1206 to reach the network access node 1202” [0203].
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanri, Abedini further in view of Wu et al. (PG Pub US 2021/0099988 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nanri, Abedini discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Nanri, Abedini does not explicitly disclose the reception unit receives first configuration information related to TDD (Time Division Duplex) - DL (Downlink) and TDD-UL via an SIB (System Information Block) from the base station.
Nevertheless, Wu discloses “a common TDD configuration may indicate a SCS and a first TDD UL/DL pattern .. The BS 205 may transmit a signal indicating the common TDD configuration in a SIB (e.g., SIB1)” [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive first configuration information related to TDD (Time Division Duplex) - DL (Downlink) and TDD-UL via an SIB (System Information Block) from the base station because “it may be desirable for the UEs to know the TDD configuration of a BS and to determine those resources (e.g., UL slots) that can be used for sidelink communications” [0062].
Regarding claim 11, Nanri, Abedini discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Wu discloses the reception unit receives first configuration information related to TDD (Time Division Duplex) - DL (Downlink) and TDD-UL via an SIB from the base station (System Information Block) (“a common TDD configuration may indicate a SCS and a first TDD UL/DL pattern .. The BS 205 may transmit a signal indicating the common TDD configuration in a SIB (e.g., SIB1)” [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Nanri, Abedini discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Wu discloses the reception unit receives second configuration information related to TDD-DL and TDD-UL via individual signaling from the base station (“a common TDD configuration may specify a given slot as a flexible slot, and the dedicated TDD configuration may override the flexible slot designation and specify the given slot as an UL slot. In some instances, the dedicated TDD configuration may override a flexible slot designation and specify the flexible slot as a DL slot” [0061]).
Regarding claim 13, Nanri, Abedini discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Wu discloses the reception unit receives second configuration information related to TDD-DL and TDD-UL via individual signaling from the base station (“a common TDD configuration may specify a given slot as a flexible slot, and the dedicated TDD configuration may override the flexible slot designation and specify the given slot as an UL slot. In some instances, the dedicated TDD configuration may override a flexible slot designation and specify the flexible slot as a DL slot” [0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE D FUQUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
CHRISTINE DUONG FUQUA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 07/15/2026
Prosecution Insights