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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8, 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites “the one or more measurements include measurements related to interference” and depends on claim 1, which recites the exact same feature, “one or more measurements related to interference” in line 10. Claim 30 rejected for the same reason.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240179695 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches:
An integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor and storing processor-readable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the IAB node [¶0076-77 first IAB] to:
determine, for a distributed unit (DU) of a second IAB node (IAB-DU), a set of restricted IAB-DU beams that are not to be used by the second IAB-DU while a mobile termination function (MT) of the second IAB node (IAB-MT) is using one or more IAB-MT beams [¶0076-77, first IAB (claimed IAB) sends, to second IAB node downstream, beam restriction information, ¶0059, “parent IAB can dynamically indicate a set of restricted DL beams (IAB-DU beams) to the child IAB node to prevent the child IAB DU from using beams that cause strong interference” ¶0126-129 further indicates beams in case of simultaneous transmission being restricted], the determination of the set of restricted IAB-DU beams being based at least in part on one or more measurements related to interference caused by the IAB-DU and the IAB-MT performing a simultaneous operation in one or more simultaneous multiplexing modes [¶0071, first IAB node measures downlink transmission signal of DU of second IAB node (IAB-DU) and measures uplink signal of MT of the second IAB node (IAB-MT), related to interference caused by downlink of DU to uplink as this leads to determination of restricted beams for preventing interference ¶0059]; and transmit, to the second IAB node, signaling that indicates the set of restricted IAB-DU beams and associates the set of restricted IAB-DU beams with the one or more IAB-MT beams [¶0059, “parent IAB can dynamically indicate a set of restricted DL beams (IAB-DU beams) to the child IAB node to prevent the child IAB DU from using beams that cause strong interference”].
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches:
The IAB node of claim 1, wherein the signaling includes one or more fields that associate the set of restricted IAB-DU beams with the one or more IAB-MT beams [¶0126 regarding restrictions information “Optionally, the restriction information may include at least one of the following: [0127] i) first information of the DU of the second IAB node, where the first information is used to determine a restricted beam; [0128] ii) restriction type of the restricted beam; and [0129] iii) second information related to a third beam, where the third beam is an uplink transmission beam of an MT of the second IAB node.” Thus may include fields associating restricted beam with MT beams being third beam, ¶0059 may be set of beams as restricted].
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches:
The IAB node of claim 1, wherein the signaling indicates that each IAB-DU beam included in the set of restricted IAB-DU beams is associated with all IAB-MT beams based at least in part on the signaling omitting one or more fields to associate the set of restricted IAB-DU beams with any of the one or more IAB-MT beams [See Wang ¶0126-129, “Optionally, the restriction information may include at least one of the following: [0127] i) first information of the DU of the second IAB node, where the first information is used to determine a restricted beam; [0128] ii) restriction type of the restricted beam; and [0129] iii) second information related to a third beam, where the third beam is an uplink transmission beam of an MT of the second IAB node.” The inclusion of “at least one of the following” means it may omit fields such as iii to associate third beam and restricted beam, thus restricted beams still communicated with omitted fields, Examiner recommending Applicant clarify this limitation as specifying “omitting” can mean under broadest reasonable interpretation the information lacking any arbitrary field relating to associating beams].
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches:
The IAB node of claim 1, wherein the interference comprises inter-link interference or self-interference [¶0058 “For the case that transmission of IAB DU and transmission of IAB MT are performed simultaneously (that is, DU-TX&MT-TX), as shown in FIG. 3, the downlink transmission of IAB DU will cause interference to the uplink transmission of IAB MT” considered inter-link interference].
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches:
The IAB node of claim 1, wherein the interference is caused by a transmission corresponding to the simultaneous operation [¶0058 “For the case that transmission of IAB DU and transmission of IAB MT are performed simultaneously (that is, DU-TX&MT-TX), as shown in FIG. 3, the downlink transmission of IAB DU will cause interference to the uplink transmission of IAB MT”].
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches:
The IAB node of claim 1, wherein the signaling indicates the set of restricted IAB-DU beams are restricted in the one or more simultaneous multiplexing modes [Wang ¶0058 “For the case that transmission of IAB DU and transmission of IAB MT are performed simultaneously (that is, DU-TX&MT-TX), as shown in FIG. 3, the downlink transmission of IAB DU will cause interference to the uplink transmission of IAB MT” See further ¶0126-129, restricted beam with third beam for uplink considered to indicate for simultaneous multiplexing mode].
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches:
The IAB node of claim 1, wherein the simultaneous operation is enabled based at least in part on a multiplexing mode being configured in accordance with beam-specific characteristics associated with a multiplexing capability at the second IAB node [¶0044-56 IAB node configured for simultaneous transmission reception with SDM (beam-specific characteristics) in specific directions and timing parameters].
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches:
The IAB node of claim 1, wherein the one or more measurements include measurements related to interference [¶0071, first IAB node measures downlink transmission signal of DU of second IAB node (IAB-DU) and measures uplink signal of MT of the second IAB node (IAB-MT), related to interference caused by downlink of DU to uplink].
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches:
An integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor and storing processor-readable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the IAB node [¶0059 child IAB node] to: receive, from a parent node based at least in part on one or more measurements related to interference caused by a distributed unit (DU) of the IAB node (IAB-DU) and a mobile termination function (MT) of the IAB node (IAB-MT) performing a simultaneous operation in one or more simultaneous multiplexing modes [¶0076-77, first IAB (parent IAB) sends, to claimed IAB node downstream, beam restriction information, ¶0059, “parent IAB can dynamically indicate a set of restricted DL beams (IAB-DU beams) to the child IAB node to prevent the child IAB DU from using beams that cause strong interference” ¶0126-129 further indicates beams in case of simultaneous transmission being restricted], signaling that indicates a set of restricted IAB-DU beams that are not to be used by the IAB-DU while the IAB-MT is using one or more IAB-MT beams, the signaling associating the set of restricted IAB-DU beams with the one or more IAB-MT beams [¶0059, “parent IAB can dynamically indicate a set of restricted DL beams (IAB-DU beams) to the child IAB node to prevent the child IAB DU from using beams that cause strong interference”]; perform, by the IAB-MT, a first transmit or receive operation using an IAB-MT beam included in the one or more IAB-MT beams that are associated with the set of restricted IAB-DU beams; and perform, by the IAB-DU simultaneously with the first transmit or receive operation, a second transmit or receive operation using an IAB-DU beam that is not included in the set of restricted IAB-DU beams [¶0126-129 IAB node implements transmission based on restricted beams, see also ¶0059, “parent IAB can dynamically indicate a set of restricted DL beams (IAB-DU beams) to the child IAB node to prevent the child IAB DU from using beams that cause strong interference” and see 502 Figure 5, ¶0216-218].
Regarding claim 10-15, see similar rejections for claim 2-7.
Regarding claim 16-22, see similar rejections for claim 1-7.
Regarding claim 23, see similar rejections for claim 9.
Regarding claim 24-30, see similar rejections for claim 2-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240348310 A1
US 20240243797 A1
US 20220376851 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights