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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Nilsson et al. for the "JOINT-REPEATER-UE BEAM REPORT IN REPEATER-ASSISTED NETWORKS" filed 09/20/2024 has been examined. This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2023/060538, International Filing Date: 04/21/2023, and Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63334363, filed 04/25/2022. The preliminary amendment filed 09/20/2024 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-19, 25 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.--The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 5-6, 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 16 recites the limitation "the UE-only beam report…" on lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recite the limitation "the Joint-repeater-UE reporting…" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-19 recite the limitation "the failed/deteriorated connection……" on lines 1, 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 15, 17 recite the limitation "the Repeater-only beam report…" on lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
7. Claims 1, 3, 5-19, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US#11,528,075) in view of Luo et al. (US#10,979,917).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose a method and device for joint beam management in wireless networks, according to the essential features of the claim. Li et al. (US#11,528,075) discloses a method performed by a wireless network node for monitoring a connection to a User Equipment UE through a repeater node (see Figs. 6-7; Col. 2, lines 13-40 for beam monitoring between BS 110 - repeater 140 - UE 120), the method comprising:
configuring the UE or the repeater node with one or more beam reports containing reference signals for evaluating one or more links between one or more of the group consisting of: the wireless network node, the repeater node, and the UE (see Fig. 7; Col. 19, lines 22-52 & Col. 21, lines 1-14: a base station 110 may transmit a configuration that indicates a resource set to be used by a millimeter wave repeater 140 for beam management. As shown, the beam management configuration with first set of resources for receiving RSs and second set of resources for transmitting RSs); transmitting one or more configured reference signals associated with the triggered beam reports (Fig. 7; Col. 19, line 53 to Col. 20, line 6: the base station 110 may transmit a reference signal Rx e.g., an SSB, a CSI-RS, and/or the like to the repeater 140 via a beam. As shown by reference number 715, the repeater 140 may transmit the received reference signal Tx via multiple beams); and receiving the one or more beam reports (Fig. 7; Col. 21, lines 1-14 & Col. 21, line 65 to Col. 22, line 20: The UE 120 may receive one or more relayed downlink RSs from the repeater 140 and may perform measurement and/or reporting of the one or more relayed downlink RSs according to the configuration).
Althought, Li reference does not disclose expressly the triggering one or more of the configured beam reports. However, it is well-known in the field for the use of triggering for information about the starting of a procedure for beam management. The use of such triggering steps is a design measure depending on the underlying communication system, and lies in the normal design responsibilities of the skilled person in the art. In the same field of endeavor, Luo et al. (US#10,979,917) teaches that a UE's beam measurement report (e.g. L1-RSRP report), can be periodic, where it is configured for a UE through an RRC message during connection setup; or aperiodic, where, for 5G or NR, it at least supports base station triggered aperiodic beam reporting (Fig. 12; Col. 5, lines 53-67).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Luo’s systems and methods for communication beam recovery into Li’s techniques and apparatuses for joint beam management for backhaul links and access links with the motivation being to provide a method and device for joint beam management in wireless networks.
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Luo teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Luo et al. (US#10,979,917) further teaches wherein monitoring radio link performance and determining where potential beam link failure has taken place (Fig. 12; Col. 6, lines 7-14 & Col. 18, lines 46-61: beam pair link failure detection).
In so far as understood, Regarding claims 5-6, Li in view of Luo teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Li et al. (US#11,528,075) further teaches wherein configuring the UE-only/Joint-repeater-UE beam report comprise one or more of: providing the repeater node with an associated beam mapping configuration, and providing the repeater node with a configuration on operation modes (Fig. 7; Col. 19, lines 42-52 & Col. 21, lines 1-14: techniques associated with joint beam management for backhaul links and access links).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Luo teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Li et al. (US#11,528,075) further teaches wherein the operation modes comprise one or more of the group consisting of: forwarding, ON/OFF and DL/UL (Col. 1; lines 43-53: design measure).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Luo teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Li et al. (US#11,528,075) further teaches wherein triggering the one or more configured beam reports is based on a determination of failed/deteriorated connection between the wireless network node served through the repeater node (Col. 4, lines 1-14: obvious design measure, since when a beam failure is detected, and it is necessary to find another beam).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Luo teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Luo et al. (US#10,979,917) further teaches wherein determining the failed/deteriorated connection between the wireless network node and the UE is based on received signal quality from Uplink, UL, signals transmitted from the repeater node to the wireless network node or based on Channel State Information, CSI, reports from the UE (Col. 6, lines 7-14: Beam identification RS includes periodic CSI-RS for beam management, and monitoring beam failure detection).
In so far as understood, Regarding claims 10, 12-13, 17-18, Li in view of Luo teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Luo et al. (US#10,979,917) further teaches wherein determining the failed/deteriorated connection between the wireless network node and the UE is based on simultaneous detection of a performance drop for several UE connections served through the repeater node (Col. 6, lines 7-42: design measure depending on the underlying communication system).
In so far as understood, Regarding claims 11, 14, Li in view of Luo teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Luo et al. (US#10,979,917) further teaches wherein determining the failed/deteriorated connection between the wireless network node and the UE is based on a beam failure recovery request signaled from the repeater node to the wireless network node (Fig. 12; Col. 6, lines 15-42: the UE performs beam failure recovery request procedures where all communication beams have failed).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 15-16, 19, Li in view of Luo teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Luo et al. (US#10,979,917) further teaches wherein triggering the Repeater-only beam report in case the failed/deteriorated connection between the wireless network node and the UE is determined to be a result of a failed/deteriorated service link (Col. 6, lines 7-42: obvious design measure).
Regarding claim 25, It is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1 examined above. Therefore, claim 25 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2, 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 paragraph as set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein configuring the UE or
the repeater node with the one or more beam reports comprises one or more of: configuring the repeater node with one or more beam reports containing a set of X beam pair links between the wireless network node and the repeater node for evaluating the one or more beam pairs between the wireless network node, and the repeater node; configuring the UE with a UE-only beam report containing Y reference signals to be used for evaluating Y repeater beams between the repeater node and the UE; and configuring the UE with a joint-repeater-UE beam report containing X + Y reference signals to be used for evaluating X wireless network node beams for a service link and Y repeater beams for an access link, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Tekgul et al. (US#11,570,640) shows techniques for coordinating scheduling wireless communications using a repeater
The Abedini et al. (US#11,330,603) shows sounding based beam management and repeater association.
The Karimidehkordi et al. (US#2025/0088948) method and apparatus for smart repeater.
The Kurita et al. (US#2025/0183979) shows repeater and communication method
The Ali et al. (US#12,483,312) shows repeater configuration for CSI-RS
The Noh et al. (US#12,284,535) method and apparatus for signal transmission and reception in wireless communication system.
The Zhang et al. (US#2024/0313848) shows repeater, network device and communication method thereof.
The Zhao et al. (US#2025/0203429) shows method, devices, and computer readable medium for communication.
11. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
13. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
08/20/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights