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 .
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: mobile termination module and forward module in claims 1 and 10.
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 1, 2, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 6, replace “the network as a terminal equipment” with --a network as the terminal equipment--. In line 9, replace “user equipment(s)” with --terminal equipment(s)--.
Regarding claim 2, in line 1, replace “wherein that the MT accesses to a network” with --wherein that the MT accesses to the network--.
Regarding claim 17, in line 2, replace “the link” with --a link--.
Regarding claim 18, in line 9, replace ‘the terminal equipment” with --a terminal equipment--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abedini et al (US 2022/0045746 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abedini discloses a network integration apparatus for a node, configured in a first node (Fig. 15), the apparatus comprising:
a mobile termination module (MT) configured to control (Fig. 15, determination component 1510) a forward module (Fwd) (Fig. 15, transmission component 1504) of the first node (Fig. 15, repeater node 1500); and
the Fwd configured to forward a signal between a network device and a terminal equipment (Fig. 7, blocks 730, 735, and 740, repeater node forwards the received signal from the control node to wireless node);
wherein the MT accesses to the network as a terminal equipment via an RRC (Radio Resource Control) connection management procedure (Fig. 7, the repeater node must establish connection to the control node before performing repeating operation), reports information indicating the type of the first node to the network device (Fig. 6, repeater node transmits an indication of duplexing communication capability to the control node and/or Fig. 7, repeater node transmits an indication of SI delay, buffering capability, latency, and power consumption to control node and/or Fig. 8, repeater node transmits an indication of processing modes to control node), and performs authorization (Fig. 7, the repeater node must authorize for use as a repeater before receiving and forwarding the signal from the control node) with a core network (Fig. 1, core network 130 must include AMF for authorization, as known in the art) via the network device (Fig. 1, BS 110a), and the Fwd is started to serve user equipment (Fig. 7, block 740).
Regarding claim 9, Abedini discloses that wherein the first node is a network-controlled repeater (NCR) or a smart repeater (SR) or a reconfiguration intelligent surface (RIS) (Fig. 7, repeater node).
Regarding claim 10, Abedini discloses a communication control apparatus, configured in a first node (Fig. 15), the apparatus comprising:
a mobile termination module (MT) (Fig. 15, determination component 1510) configured to receive control information from a network device (Fig. 6, control node transmits configuration for repeating operating in block 635 to repeater node), and manage and configure a forward module (Fwd) (Fig. 15, transmission component 1504) of the first node (Fig. 15, repeater node 1500) according to the control information (Fig. 6, the repeater node controls transmissions to wireless node according to configuration in block 640); and
the Fwd configured to forward an analog uplink signal from a terminal equipment to the network device, or forward an analog downlink signal from the network device to the terminal equipment (Fig. 7, block 740).
Regarding claim 11, Abedini discloses that wherein the control information is carried by dynamic signaling (202nd paragraph, the indication may be RRC signaling and/or MAC CE).
Regarding claim 12, Abedini discloses that wherein the dynamic signaling carries the control information by using an MAC CE (control element) (202nd paragraph, the indication may be RRC signaling and/or MAC CE).
Regarding claim 13, Abedini discloses that wherein the dynamic signaling carries the control information by using DCI (downlink control information) (202nd paragraph, the indication may be downlink control information).
Regarding claim 14, Abedini discloses that wherein the dynamic signaling comprises a parameter dynamically configured for the Fwd (Fig. 8, block 825, indication includes parameters for transmitting the signal).
Regarding claim 15, Abedini discloses that wherein the parameter comprises at least one of the following:
an on-off mode;
timing information for aligning transmission/reception boundaries (216th paragraph, one or more parameters may include timing parameter);
beamforming information;
dynamic uplink-downlink TDD (Time Division Duplex) configuration;
power and/or gain control information;
bandwidth information (211th paragraph, one or more parameters may include occupied bandwidth);
reference signal configuration for the Fwd; and
reference signal transmit power for the Fwd.
Regarding claim 16, Abedini discloses that wherein the on-off mode comprises at least one of the following: the period of the on-off mode; the duration of the forwarding time of the Fwd (216th paragraph, the control node may determine to communicate with the receiver node, via the repeater node, using short slots or long slots based on latency values); on-off command.
Regarding claim 17, Abedini discloses that wherein the beamforming information comprises the beam information of the link between a TRP (Transmission Reception Point) and an NCR (Network-Controlled Repeater) and/or the beam information of the link between an NCR and a terminal equipment (165th paragraph, the control node may indicate a beamforming configuration associated with repeating communications).
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.
Claims 2, 5-8, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Latheef, Fasil Abdul (WO 2019/216717 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Abedini discloses a repeater node for receiving and forwarding signal between control node and wireless node (Fig. 7). Abedini does not disclose that wherein that the MT accesses to a network comprises the MT selects a network device supporting a type of the first node for access based on an indication information of candidate network devices. Latheef discloses that the MT of IAB node receiving OAM configuration, OAM pre-configuration, IAB initial configuration from OAM and MT of IAB node selects a DgNB for access based on configuration (Fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive node configuration in Abedini’s system, as suggested by Latheef, to select an optimum access node.
Regarding claim 5, Abedini discloses a repeater node for receiving and forwarding signal between control node and wireless node (Fig. 7). Abedini does not disclose that wherein the MT performs authorization with a core network via the network device comprises: the network device selects an AMF (Access and Mobility Management Function) supporting the type of the first node; the core network authorizes the first node and provides the result to the network device. Latheef discloses that the DgNB forwards the attach request of IAB node and once authentication is successfully completed, the MT 104B of IAB node 104 receives an attach accept from the AMF through DgNB (Fig. 2C and 64th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include network authorization on in Abedini’s system, as suggested by Latheef, to authorize a node for network access.
Regarding claims 6-8, Abedini discloses a repeater node for receiving and forwarding signal between control node and wireless node (Fig. 7). Abedini does not disclose that the MT established OAM connection with an OAM server by using a PDU session, and/or wherein MT establishes OAM connection with an OAM server via IP layer and/or wherein MT establishes OAM connection with OAM server via layer 2. Latheef discloses that MT of IAB node establishing OAM connection with OAM via PDU session establishment (Fig. 2C, 2D, and/or 2E). Latheef discloses that IAB node including MAC layer, RLC layer, RRC layer, PDCP layer, and so on for establishing a connection to the core network including OAM server (58th and 59th paragraphs). Latheef discloses an IP connectivity between MT of IAB node and OAM (Fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed in invention to include establishing OAM connection with OAM server in Abedini’s system via IP layer and/or layer 2, as suggested by Latheef, for receiving configuration, monitoring, troubleshooting, and securing network access.
Regarding claim 18, Abedini discloses a network integration apparatus for a node, configured in a network device (Fig. 18, control node), the apparatus comprising:
a receiver (Fig. 18, reception component 1802) configured to receive capability information reported by the MT of the first node (Fig. 6, repeater node transmits an indication of duplexing communication capability to the control node and/or Fig. 7, repeater node transmits an indication of SI delay, buffering capability, latency, and power consumption to control node and/or Fig. 8, repeater node transmits an indication of processing modes to control node), the capability information indicating that the first node comprises a forward module (Fwd) (Fig. 7, block 710, the indication may include forwarding latency. It is an indication that the repeater node include transmission component); and
processor circuitry (Fig. 18, determination component 1808) configured to authorize the first node with a core network (Fig. 7, the repeater node must authorize for use as a repeater before receiving and forwarding the signal from the control node);
wherein the MT is configured to set the Fwd (Fig. 15, the determination component 1510 controls the transmission component 1504), the Fwd is configured to forward a signal between the network device and the terminal equipment (Fig. 7), and the Fwd is started after the Fwd accesses to the network (Fig. 7, repeater node is authorized for use), reports capability information to the network device (Fig. 6, repeater node transmits an indication of duplexing communication capability to the control node and/or Fig. 7, repeater node transmits an indication of SI delay, buffering capability, latency, and power consumption to control node and/or Fig. 8, repeater node transmits an indication of processing modes to control node) and performs authorization (Fig. 7, the repeater node must authorize for use as a repeater before receiving and forwarding the signal from the control node) with a core network (Fig. 1, core network 130 must include AMF for authorization, as known in the art) via the network device (Fig. 1, BS 110a).
Abedini does not disclose access processor circuitry configured to enable a mobile termination module (MT) of a first node to access to a network according to an access request of the MT of the first node. Latheef discloses that MT of IAB node sending attach request to DgNB for network access (Fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting attach request in Abedini’s system, as suggested by Latheef, to authorize a node for network access.
Regarding claim 19, Abedini discloses a repeater node for receiving and forwarding signal between control node and wireless node (Fig. 7). Abedini does not disclose a transmitter configured to transmit an indication information to the MT of the first node; the MT of the first node selects the network device supporting the first node for access based on an indication information of candidate network devices. Latheef discloses that the MT of IAB node receiving OAM configuration, OAM pre-configuration, IAB initial configuration from OAM via DgNB and MT of IAB node selects a DgNB for access based on configuration (Fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive node configuration in Abedini’s system, as suggested by Latheef, to select an optimum access node.
Regarding claim 20, Abedini discloses that wherein the receiver receives a first message reported by the MT of the first node, the first message comprising the capability information, the capability information containing a capability of the first node and/or information indicating a type of the first node (Fig. 6, block 625, Fig. 7, block, 710, and Fig. 8, block 820).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights