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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 21-22, 24, 27-30, 33-35, 37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abedini et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Abedini”, US 2021/0127368).
As to claim 21, Abedini teaches a method performed by a repeater (Figs. 6-7), the method comprising: receiving, from a network device, a configuration of a set of first time resources used for an access link between the repeater and a terminal device, wherein the configuration of the set of first time resources comprises a priority indication (Figs. 6-7, steps 624, 626, and 628, paragraphs [0106], [0114]-[0116], and [0119]); and performing communication on the access link based on the priority indication in a case where a first time resource in the set of first time resources overlaps with a second time resource indicated by a control information (Fig. 7, access link 612, paragraphs [0114]-[0116], [0118], and [0119]).
As to claims 22, 29, and 35, Abedini teaches performing communication on the access link based on the priority indication comprises: apply the first time resource and a corresponding beam based on the priority indication (paragraphs [0114]-[0116], [0118], [0119], and [0124]).
As to claims 24, 30, and 37, Abedini further teaches that the set of first time resources being a set of semi-static time resources (paragraph [0115]).
As to claims 27, 33, and 40, Abedini further teaches that a time resource used for a control link between the repeater and the network device has priority over a time resource for the access link (paragraph [0118]).
As to claim 28, Abedini teaches a method performed by a terminal device, the method comprising: performing communication with a repeater on an access link between the repeater and the terminal device, based on a priority indication in a case where a first time resource in a set of first time resources used for the access link overlaps with a second time resource indicated by a control information (Fig. 7, access link 612, paragraphs [0114]-[0116], [0118], and [0119]), wherein a configuration of the set of first time resources is received by the repeater from a network device, wherein the configuration of the set of first time resources comprises the priority indication (Figs. 6-7, steps 624, 626, and 628, paragraphs [0106], [0114]-[0116], and [0119]).
As to claim 34, Abedini teaches a method performed by a network device, the method comprising: transmitting, to a repeater, a configuration of a set of first time resources used for an access link between the repeater and a terminal device, wherein the configuration of the set of first time resources comprises a priority indication (Figs. 6-7, steps 624, 626, and 628, paragraphs [0106], [0114]-[0116], and [0119]), wherein the priority indication is used for communication on the access link in a case where a first time resource in the set of first time resources overlaps with a second time resource indicated by a control information (Fig. 7, access link 612, paragraphs [0114]-[0116], [0118], and [0119]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 23 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Akkarakaran et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Akkarakaran”, US 2021/0014833).
As to claims 23 and 36, Abedini does not teach receiving, from a network device, an indication of a reference subcarrier spacing (SCS) associated with the access link.
Akkarakaran further teaches receiving, from a network device, an indication of a reference subcarrier spacing (SCS) associated with the access link (paragraphs [0062]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to receive, from a network device, an indication of a reference subcarrier spacing (SCS) associated with the access link in order for the UE to be configured with different sets of parameters, which may be based on capabilities of the UE by the network device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-26, 31-32, and 38-39 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhamri, US 2024/0014959, Figs. 1-6 and 10-11
Li et al., US 2021/0037457, Figs. 3 and 12-17
Wang et al., US 2022/0417905, Figs. 2-4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRESHTEH N AGHDAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:30-7:00 ET.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/FRESHTEH N AGHDAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 7/9/2026
Prosecution Insights