DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 06/13/2024 and 10/08/2024. Claims 1-37 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim limitation of “receiving, by an IAB node, at least one resource configuration and at least one parameter for the IAB node, wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one timing advance, at least one timing advance offset and at least one timing error” as recited in the independent claims 1 and 37, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 1, 2, and 3a-3c should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the claim limitation of “receiving, by an IAB node, at least one resource configuration and at least one parameter for the IAB node, wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one timing advance, at least one timing advance offset and at least one timing error” recited in claims 1-37.
Moreover, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites the limitation of “receiving, by an IAB node, at least one resource configuration and at least one parameter for the IAB node, wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one timing advance, at least one timing advance offset and at least one timing error.” Since the instant application is a divisional application of the earlier or parent application 17/420,632, therefore, the disclosure presented in the instant application must not include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted as an amendment to the parent application 17/420,632. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 17, line 5, “IAB node.” should be changed to --IAB node;--.
As per claim 34, the claim appears to depend from itself. Therefore, the claim has a dependency problem. In accordance with the claim language, claim 34 should depend from base claim 32 and it shall be treated as so for examining purpose henceforth.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1-37, the claims commonly call for the limitation of “receiving, by an IAB node, at least one resource configuration and at least one parameter for the IAB node, wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one timing advance, at least one timing advance offset and at least one timing error.” Since the instant application is a divisional application of the earlier or parent application 17/420,632, therefore, the disclosure presented in the instant application must not include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted as an amendment to the parent application 17/420,632. Should the recitation of “receiving, by an IAB node, at least one resource configuration and at least one parameter for the IAB node, wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one timing advance, at least one timing advance offset and at least one timing error.” be amended into the parent application 17/420,632, it would constitute new matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Should the response to this Office Action overcome all of the above raised issues, the instant application shall be placed in a favorable condition for allowance because the prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, appears to fail to fairly show or suggest a claim invention commonly recited the novel and unobvious limitations of “receiving, by an IAB node, at least one resource configuration and at least one parameter for the IAB node, wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one timing advance, at least one timing advance offset and at least one timing error,” structurally and functionally interconnected in a manner as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al. (US 12,213,155).
Kurita et al. (US 2024/0073839).
Choi et al. (US 2021/0306112).
Jo et al. (US 11,303,349).
Nam et al. (US 2020/0059879).
You et al. (US 2020/0229271).
Tiirola et al. (US 2021/0250941).
Jo et al. (US 11,412,482).
Jo et al. (US 11,503,586).
Luo et al. (US 2020/0145997).
Park et al. (US 2019/0053183).
Abedini et al. (US 10,945,226).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 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 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.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights