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 Choi for the "APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SEARCHING BEAM BASED ON NETWORK CONTROLLED REPEATER IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM" filed 11/27/2024 has been examined. This application claims foreign priority to 10-2023-0169868, filed 11/29/2023, and claims foreign priority to 10-2024-0154499, filed 11/04/2024 in Korea. Claims 1-12 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. Claim 1, 5, 9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis…", “the time…” on lines 6, 7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the basis…", “the time…” on lines 6, 7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 9 recites the limitation "the basis…", “the time…” on lines 9, 10 respectively. 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. Claims 1-2, 4 & 9-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban et al. (US#2026/0107269) in view of Bhamri et al. (US#2026/0106663).
Regarding claims 1, 9, the references disclose a method and device for performing adaptive beamforming on an NCR access link in a wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claim. Ban et al. (US#2026/0107269) discloses a beam search procedure performed by a network-controlled repeater (NCR) in a wireless communication system (see Fig. 9, para [045]-[0147] for a Network-Controlled Repeater NCR based communi cations between a BS and a UE), the beam search procedure comprising: performing carrier sensing under control of a base station to set a communication-possible area (Figs. 9, 26; para [0133], [0156]-[0158]: performing adaptive beamforming in an access link between an RU and a UE of an NCR); limiting a beam candidate group on the basis of the communication-possible area to shorten the time taken for beam search (Figs. 11, 18; para [0007]-[0012]: determining beam set indices of candidate beam sets consisting of a plurality of candidate beams for a simultaneous multi-beam operation that is performed simultaneously through an access link with a UE); and continuing the carrier sensing even after the beam search procedure is initiated, to update the beam candidate group (Fig. 11, para [0151]: adaptively adjusting a transmit/receive beam direction of the NCR based on a location of the UE and channel conditions of the UE). It’s also noted that 3GPP Rel-18 is standardizing a network-controlled repeater (NCR), which is a wireless repeater with a beamforming function that operates under the control of a base station to extend network coverage. The NCR is an in-band repeater that is used for extending network coverage and uses the same frequency band on a control lin k, an interface for control, and on a link for data transmission. These technologies will improve the performance of 5G mobile communication systems and enable efficient network establishment.
Althought, Ban reference does not disclose expressly wherein the carrier sensing under control of a BS to set a communication-possible area. However, Ban teaches that NCR may be used to sense a wireless environment by integrating sensing functions, in addition to controlling the propagation of the electromagnetic waves (Ban et al.: para [0133]: to sense a wireless environment by integrating sensing functions). In the same field of endeavor, Bhamri et al. (US#2026/0106663) discloses in Figs. 1-3 diagrams illustrated process for control information for an NCR, in which UEs 110 and the RAN nodes 122 may perform one or more known medium-sensing operations or carrier-sensing operations in order to determine whether one or more channels in the spectrum is unavailable for communications (para [0026], [0034]: carrier sensing function for monitoring of channel communications).
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 Bhamri’s carrier-sensing operations into Ban’s beam indication which an RU of an NCR uses in an access link with the motivation being to provide a method and device for NCR-based beam search in a wireless communication system.
Regarding claims 2, 10, Ban in view of Bhamris teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 9 examined above, Ban et al. (US#2026/0107269) further teaches wherein information on the beam candidate group set through the carrier sensing is updated, and an optimal beam search procedure is transmitted to the base station (Fig. 13; para [0007]-[0013], [0227]: candidate beam sets for an optimal DL Tx beam and an optimal UL Rx beam of the RU may be configured).
Regarding claims 4, 12, Ban in view of Bhamris teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 9 examined above, Ban et al. (US#2026/0107269) further teaches wherein optimizing the beam search procedure on the basis of beam setting-related information received from the base station (Fig. 13; para [0214]-[0215], [0227]: candidate beam sets for an optimal DL/UL Tx/Rx beams).
7. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban et al. (US#2026/0107269) in view of Bhamri et al. (US#2026/0106663).
Regarding claim 5, the references disclose a method and device for performing adaptive beamforming on an NCR access link in a wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claim. Ban et al. (US#2026/0107269) discloses a beam search procedure performed by a base station (BS) in a wireless communication system, the beam search procedure comprising: recognizing a communication-possible area through carrier sensing (Figs. 9, 26; para [0133], [0156]-[0158]: performing adaptive beamforming in an access link between an RU and a UE of an NCR); limiting an area targeted for beam search on the basis of the communication-possible area to shorten the time taken for beam search (Figs. 11, 18; para [0007]-[0012]: determining beam set indices of candidate beam sets consisting of a plurality of candidate beams for a simultaneous multi-beam operation that is performed simultaneously through an access link with a UE).
Althought, Ban reference does not disclose expressly wherein omitting a wide beam search procedure and entering a narrow beam search procedure for the communication-possible area. However, the use of narrow beam search algorithm or a wide beam search algorithm for optimal DL/UL Tx/Rx beams by the BS are well known in the art, as seen in Ban et al reference (Fig. 13; para [0199]-[0200], [0214]-[0215], [0227]: whether the beam type of each beam index is a narrow beam or a wide beam). In the same field of endeavor, Ozkoe et al. (US#2024/0348317) discloses in Fig. 5 a diagram illustrated an example of a composite beam transmission using a single antenna array 500, in which the BS 102 can transmit two wide beams 502 and fourteen narrow beams 504, where each wide beam 502 has seven children narrow beams 504. The example only shows the beam distribution in one dimension. In a hierarchical beam search, the two wide beams 502 are first transmitted by the BS 102 in order to identify the best wide beam 502. Then the BS 102 transmits the seven narrow beams 504 belonging to the best wide beam 502 to a UE 116 (see also Fig. 14; para [0072], [0095]: wide beam index and narrow beam index for the beam search).
Regarding claim 6, Ban in view of Ozkoc teaches the apparatus of claim 5 examined above, Ozkoc et al. (US#2024/0348317) further teaches wherein updating a beam candidate group on the basis of measurement information including received signal received power (RSRP) and a channel quality indicator (CQI) received from a user equipment (UE)(Fig. 5; para [0072]: measures the signal quality e.g., RSRP, RSRQ, SNR, CQI, or the like of the seven narrow beams 504).
Regarding claim 7, Ban in view of Ozkoc teaches the apparatus of claim 5 examined above, Ozkoc et al. (US#2024/0348317) further teaches wherein the carrier sensing uses strength of a signal coming into a user equipment (UE), strength of reflected wave of a signal transmitted from the base station, or a measurement indicator included in a message of communication protocol (para [0005]-[0007], [0076]: the UE measurements of the channel could be RSRP/RSRQ, CQI, SNR, SINR, and the like).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3, 8, 11 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 the carrier sensing is to adjust a width of beam search on the basis of strength of a signal received in a particular direction, and set a narrow beam or wide beam candidate group according
to a communication environment, 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 Ban et al. (US#2025/0202552) shows method and device for performing adaptive beamforming in wireless communication system
The Shim et al. (US#2025/0274185) shows method for performing communication by device in wireless communication system and apparatus therefor.
The You et al. (US#20250247715) shows method for operating device in wireless communication system and device using same method.
The Chen et al. (US#2025/0219707) shows method network controlled repeater, and access network node.
The Lee et al. (US#12,562,785) shows method and apparatus for repeater beam configuration in wireless communication system.
The Ali et al. (US#2026/0100751) shows NCR operation during beam recovery procedure of the backhaul link.
The Bhamri et al. (US#2025/0150985) shows systems, methods, and devices for power sharing between control and backhaul links of a network controlled repeater.
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
10/07/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
