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 limitations are: reception section that receives..., control section that determines...control section that determines..., transmission section that transmits... in claims 6-12 respectively.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see repeater 13 at par [0018], base station 12 at par [0017], and radio communication system 1 at par [0015]) as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0199466 A1) and in further view of Ali et al. (US 2023/0170962 A1).
Regarding Claim 6. Wang teaches a repeater, comprising:
a reception section that receives first resource information related to a periodic resource and second resource information related to a semi-persistent resource (the SL-repeater 904 to initiate the sidelink discovery procedure to identify SL-nodes in the proximity of the SL-repeater 904 and to report the sidelink identifiers (SL-IDs) of the SL-nodes back to the base station. The base station 902 may trigger the discovery procedure in an a periodic, semi-persistent, or periodic manner. The base station 902 may provide PUSCH resources that may be used to report the discovered SL-nodes, par [0170]. Also, par [0008] teaches a transceiver to receive/transmit signals).
Wang does not teach a control section that determines a resource for a first signal to be forwarded, based on the first resource information, and determines a resource for a second signal to be forwarded, based on the second resource information.
However, Ali in a similar field of endeavor discloses a control section that determines a resource for a first signal to be forwarded, based on the first resource information, and determines a resource for a second signal to be forwarded, based on the second resource information (Configuring the smart repeater to measure and report CSI-RS for baseband capable repeaters and configure the smart repeater to map received CSI-RS beams to the transmitted/forwarded CSI-RS, pars [0116-0118] and one smart repeater can be associated with ports on a given symbol with CDM1 (e.g., first CDM code or orthogonal code), while another smart repeater can be associated with ports on the same symbol on same REs, but with a different CDM2 (e.g., second CDM code or orthogonal code). This may effectively allow the same CSI-RS patterns from a gNB and UE perspective, par [0145] and par [0168] teaches receiving feedback from the repeater node that indicates reception of one or more of the initial setup configuration and the initial access configuration (control section)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ali in the teachings of Wang to determine the resources for forwarding different signals. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang/Ali to reduce overhead in signaling.
Regarding Claim 7. The combined teachings of Wang/Ali teach the repeater according to claim 6, wherein the control section determines a periodic resource for forwarding the first signal, based on the first resource information including first time-resource information and first beam information, and the control section determines a semi-persistent resource for forwarding the second signal, based on the second resource information including second time-resource information and second beam information (Ali: CSI-RS resource configured as periodic or semi- persistent by the higher-layer parameter resourceType or configured by the higher-layer parameter CSI-RS-CellMobility, the UE shall assume that the CSI-RS is transmitted in slots satisfying, par [0012], which includes time slots, par [0124] and Ali: Configuring the smart repeater to measure and report CSI-RS for baseband capable repeaters and configure the smart repeater to map received CSI-RS beams to the transmitted/forwarded CSI-RS, pars [0115-0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ali in the teachings of Wang to determine the resources for forwarding different signals. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang/Ali to reduce overhead in signaling.
Regarding Claim 8. The combined teachings of Wang/Ali teach the repeater according to claim 6, wherein the reception section receives the first resource information and the second resource information via an information element for radio resource control, and the control section determines whether to use or not use a resource based on the second resource information, according to a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) (Wang: par [0067] discloses Medium Access layer which would include MAC CE).
Regarding Claim 9. The combined teachings of Wang/Ali teach the repeater according to claim 6, wherein the control section determines one resource among a plurality of resources included in a first resource set, based on the first resource information, and the control section determines one resource among a plurality of resources included in a second resource set, based on the second resource information (Wang: scheduling/allocating resources, pars [0040-0041]).
Regarding Claim 10. The combined teachings of Wang/Ali teach the repeater according to claim 6, wherein the control section determines the resource for the first signal that is a reference signal, based on the first resource information, and determines the resource for the second signal that is a reference signal, based on the second resource information (Ali: one smart repeater can be associated with ports on a given symbol with CDM1 (e.g., first CDM code or orthogonal code), while another smart repeater can be associated with ports on the same symbol on same REs, but with a different CDM2 (e.g., second CDM code or orthogonal code). This may effectively allow the same CSI-RS patterns from a gNB and UE perspective, par [0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ali in the teachings of Wang to determine the resources for forwarding different signals. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang/Ali to reduce overhead in signaling.
Regarding Claim 11, this apparatus (base station) claim comprises limitations(s) substantially the same, as those discussed in claim 1 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable. The combined teachings of Wang/Ali teach a base station (Wang: par [0007]).
Regarding Claim 12, this system (radio system) claim comprises limitations(s) substantially the same, as those discussed in claims 1 and 11 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable. The combined teachings of Wang/Ali teach a system (Wang: par [0028]).
Regarding Claim 13, this method claim comprises limitations(s) substantially the same, as those discussed in claim 1 above, same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MEJIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:30 AM-6:30 PM EST.
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, CHRISTOPHER PARRY can be reached at (571)272-8328. 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.
/ANTHONY MEJIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights