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 Objections
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “…multiple repeaters, , a repeater group including…” in line 2 should be corrected to “…multiple repeaters, [[,]] a repeater group including…”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 6, “…(SRS) to a UE;” in line 3 could be changed to “…(SRS) to a user equipment (UE)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai et al (US 2023/0354378) in view of He et al (US 2024/0414625).
Re claim 1, Gadhai teaches of a method for a user equipment (UE) (#202, Fig.2) to perform wireless communication using a repeater (NCR, #102, Fig.2), the method comprising: transmitting the SRS to the base station in each of sequential time durations (SRS, Paragraphs 0011, 0029 and 0055 and Paragraph 0061) according to an ON/OFF state of each repeater (ON state, Paragraph 0062, OFF state Paragraph 0063), based on information for the SRS scheduled by the base station (The at least one base station 102 initially schedules the at least one user equipment (UE) to transmit the at least one signal of the first set of signals in the time resource (i.e., a time period), Paragraph 0061); and performing wireless communication with the base station through a repeater which is determined to have the UE within its coverage based on the transmitted SRS (NCR is ON state, Paragraph 0063) (“determining whether the at least one user equipment (UE) is connected to the network-controller repeater (NCR) 102 based on the received power measurements in the at least one signal of the first set of signals”, Paragraph 0063) (Fig.2). However, Gadhai does not specifically mention of receiving configuration information for a sounding reference signal (SRS) from a basestation.
He teaches of a method for a user equipment (UE) (Terminal device, Figures 7A – 7B) to perform wireless communication using a repeater (NCR, Figures 7A – 7B), the method comprising: receiving configuration information for a sounding reference signal (SRS) from a basestation (SRS configuration, S103, S103a, Fig.7A); transmitting the SRS to the base station (S105/S106, Fig.7B) based on the configuration information for the SRS (S105, Fig.7B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the scheduling of the basestation for an SRS transmission performed by receiving an SRS configuration from the base station to configure the SRS transmission by the UE.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai and He in view of Li et al (US 2024/0244446).
Re claim 2, Gadhai and He teach all the limitations of claim 1 wherein the UE is determined to be located within its coverage based on a strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and a strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater (power measurements in the ON state and the OFF state, Paragraph 0063. However, Gadhai and He does not specifically teach of wherein the UE is determined to be located within its coverage when a difference value between the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Li teaches of the network node determine whether to switch from off to on or to on to off by comparing the signal strength (e.g., RSRP and/or SINR) to a threshold (Paragraph 0121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined that the UE is located within its coverage when a difference value between the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater is greater than a predetermined threshold so as to necessitate the use of the repeater for accurate and efficient communication between the BS and the UE.
Claims 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai, He and Li in view of He et al (US 2025/0168829) (He(2)).
Re claim 3, Gadhai, He and Li teach all the limitations of claim 2, except of wherein when the UE is determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters, one repeater is identified as having the UE within its coverage based on strength of SRS received by the base station while each of the multiple repeaters is sequentially turned ON and OFF.
He(2) teaches of wherein when the UE is determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters (NCR1, NCR2, Fig.5), one repeater is identified as having the UE within its coverage based on strength of SRS received by the base station (RSRP, Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131) while each of the multiple repeaters is sequentially turned ON and OFF (sequentially turned ON and OFF as shown in Fig.5, Paragraphs 0121 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters, one repeater is identified as having the UE within its coverage based on strength of SRS received by the base station while each of the multiple repeaters is sequentially turned ON and OFF to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication.
Re claim 4, Gadhai, He and Li teach all the limitations of claim 2, except of wherein when the UE is determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters, a repeater group including one repeater having the UE located within the coverage is first identified from a plurality of repeater groups based on strength of SRS received by the base station while each repeater in the plurality of repeater groups is sequentially turned ON and OFF, and the one repeater is then identified based on the strength of the SRS received by the base station while each of multiple repeaters in the determined repeater group is sequentially turned ON and OFF.
He(2) teaches of wherein when the UE is determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters (Fig.5), a repeater group including one repeater having the UE located within the coverage is first identified from a plurality of repeater groups based on strength of SRS received by the base station (RSRP, Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131 – 0132) while each repeater in the plurality of repeater groups is sequentially turned ON and OFF (as shown in Fig.5), and the one repeater is then identified based on the strength of the SRS received by the base station while each of multiple repeaters in the determined repeater group is sequentially turned ON and OFF (Paragraphs 0117 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have identified the coverage and the repeater based on strength of SRS received by the base station to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai and He in view of He(2) and further in view of Maamari et al (US 2022/0173865).
Re claim 5, Gadhai and he teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the repeater is determined to have the UE located within its coverage based on a sequence applied to SRS received by the base station, among sequences each configured differently for each of the multiple repeaters.
He(2) teaches of the repeater is determined to have the UE located within its coverage based on a an SRS received by the base station (Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131 – 0132).
Maamari teaches of have each UE receive a sequence applied to SRS by the base station, among sequences each configured differently for each of the multiple UEs (Fig. 6 and Paragraph 0158).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the repeater is determined to have the UE located within its coverage based on an SRS received by the base station to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sequences applied to SRS each configured differently for each of the multiple repeaters so as to avoid interference between the multiple repeaters.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai in view of He and further in view of He(2)
Re claim 6, Gadhai teaches of a method for a base station (#104, Fig.2) to perform wireless communication using a repeater (NCR, #102, Fig.2), the method comprising: scheduling a UE to transmit a sounding reference signal (SRS) (Paragraph 0061); receiving the SRS from the UE in each of sequential time durations (SRS, Paragraphs 0011, 0029 and 0055 and Paragraph 0061) according to an ON and OFF state of each repeater (ON state, Paragraph 0062, OFF state Paragraph 0063), based on the SRS scheduled by the base station (The at least one base station 102 initially schedules the at least one user equipment (UE) to transmit the at least one signal of the first set of signals in the time resource (i.e., a time period), Paragraph 0061); determining a repeater having the UE located within its coverage, based on the received SRS (Paragraph 0063); and performing wireless communication with the UE through the determined repeater based on information for the SRS scheduled by the base station (The at least one base station 102 initially schedules the at least one user equipment (UE) to transmit the at least one signal of the first set of signals in the time resource (i.e., a time period), Paragraph 0061). However, Gadhai does not specifically mention of transmitting configuration information for a sounding reference signal (SRS) to the UE. Gadhai does not specifically mention of receiving the SRS from the UE in each of sequential time durations according to an ON and OFF state of each of multiple repeaters.
He teaches of a method for a user equipment (UE) (Terminal device, Figures 7A – 7B) to perform wireless communication using a repeater (NCR, Figures 7A – 7B), the method comprising: receiving configuration information for a sounding reference signal (SRS) from a basestation (SRS configuration, S103, S103a, Fig.7A); transmitting the SRS to the base station (S105/S106, Fig.7B) based on the configuration information for the SRS (S105, Fig.7B).
He(2) teaches of in a first time unit of sequential time durations corresponding to a first reference signal a first NCR is controlled to be an ON state and a second NCR to be an OFF state and a second time unit of sequential time durations corresponding to a second reference signal the first NCR is controlled to be an OFF state and the second NCR to be an ON state (Paragraph 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the scheduling of the basestation for an SRS transmission performed by receiving an SRS configuration from the base station to configure the SRS transmission by the UE. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled multiple repeaters according to an ON/OFF state so as to provide the selection of the repeater that provides the best coverage to the UE.
Claim 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai, He and He(2) in view of Li.
Re claim 7, Gadhai, He and He(2) teach all the limitations of claim 6 wherein the UE is determined to be located within its coverage based on a strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and a strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater (power measurements in the ON state and the OFF state, Paragraph 0063. However, Gadhai, He and He(2) do not specifically teach of wherein the UE is determined to be located within its coverage when a difference value between the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Li teaches of the network node determine whether to switch from off to on or to on to off by comparing the signal strength (e.g., RSRP and/or SINR) to a threshold (Paragraph 0121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined that the UE is located within its coverage when a difference value between the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater is greater than a predetermined threshold so as to necessitate the use of the repeater for accurate and efficient communication between the BS and the UE.
Re claim 8, Gadhai, He, He(2) and Li teach all the limitations of claim 7, as well as He(2) teaches of wherein when the UE is determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters (NCR1, NCR2, Fig.5), one repeater is identified as having the UE within its coverage based on strength of SRS received by the base station (RSRP, Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131) while each of the multiple repeaters is sequentially turned ON and OFF (sequentially turned ON and OFF as shown in Fig.5, Paragraphs 0121 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters, one repeater is identified as having the UE within its coverage based on strength of SRS received by the base station while each of the multiple repeaters is sequentially turned ON and OFF to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication.
Re claim 9, Gadhai, He, He(2) and Li teach all the limitations of claim 7, as well as He(2) teaches of wherein when the UE is determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters (Fig.5), a repeater group including one repeater having the UE located within the coverage is first identified from a plurality of repeater groups based on strength of SRS received by the base station (RSRP, Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131 – 0132) while each repeater in the plurality of repeater groups is sequentially turned ON and OFF (as shown in Fig.5), and the one repeater is then identified based on the strength of the SRS received by the base station while each of multiple repeaters in the determined repeater group is sequentially turned ON and OFF (Paragraphs 0117 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have identified the coverage and the repeater based on strength of SRS received by the base station to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai, He and He(2) in view of Maamari.
Re claim 10, Gadhai, He and He(2) teach all the limitations of claim 6 as well as He(2) teaches of the repeater is determined to have the UE located within its coverage based on a an SRS received by the base station (Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131 – 0132). However, Gadhai, He and He(2) do not specifically teach of having each UE receive a sequence applied to SRS by the base station, among sequences each configured differently for each of the multiple UEs.
Maamari teaches of have each UE receive a sequence applied to SRS by the base station, among sequences each configured differently for each of the multiple UEs (Fig. 6 and Paragraph 0158).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the repeater is determined to have the UE located within its coverage based on an SRS received by the base station to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sequences applied to SRS each configured differently for each of the multiple repeaters so as to avoid interference between the multiple repeaters.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai in view of He in view of He(2) and further in view of Ali et al (US 2026/0046665).
Re claim 11, Gadhai teaches of a user equipment (UE) (#202, Fig.2) performing wireless communication using a repeater (NCR, #102, Fig.2), comprising: a transmitter; a receiver (UE having a transmitter and a receiver, Paragraphs 0018 and 0063), wherein the user equipment transmits the SRS to the base station in each of sequential time durations (SRS, Paragraphs 0011, 0029 and 0055 and Paragraph 0061) according to an ON and OFF state of each repeater (ON state, Paragraph 0062, OFF state Paragraph 0063) based on information for the SRS scheduled by the base station (The at least one base station 102 initially schedules the at least one user equipment (UE) to transmit the at least one signal of the first set of signals in the time resource (i.e., a time period), Paragraph 0061), and performs wireless communication with the base station through a repeater determined to have the UE located within its coverage based on the transmitted SRS. However, Gadhai does not specifically mention of the user equipment comprising a controller configured to control an operation of the transmitter and the receiver, wherein the controller receives configuration information for a sounding reference signal (SRS) from a basestation. Gadhai does not specifically mention of receiving the SRS from the UE in each of sequential time durations according to an ON and OFF state of each of multiple repeaters.
He teaches of a method for a user equipment (UE) (Terminal device, Figures 7A – 7B) to perform wireless communication using a repeater (NCR, Figures 7A – 7B), the method comprising: receiving configuration information for a sounding reference signal (SRS) from a basestation (SRS configuration, S103, S103a, Fig.7A); transmitting the SRS to the base station (S105/S106, Fig.7B) based on the configuration information for the SRS (S105, Fig.7B).
He(2) teaches of in a first time unit of sequential time durations corresponding to a first reference signal a first NCR is controlled to be an ON state and a second NCR to be an OFF state and a second time unit of sequential time durations corresponding to a second reference signal the first NCR is controlled to be an OFF state and the second NCR to be an ON state (Paragraph 0131).
Ali teaches of a user equipment comprising a controller (#614, Fig.6) configured to control an operation of the transmitter (#617, Fig.6) and the receiver (#615, Fig.6) (Paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the scheduling of the basestation for an SRS transmission performed by receiving an SRS configuration from the base station to configure the SRS transmission by the UE. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled multiple repeaters according to an ON/OFF state so as to provide the selection of the repeater that provides the best coverage to the UE. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE comprise a controller to efficiently control the operation of the transceiver.
Claim 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai, He, He(2) and Ali in view of Li.
Re claim 12, Gadhai, He, He(2) and Ali teach all the limitations of claim 11 wherein the UE is determined to be located within its coverage based on a strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and a strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater (power measurements in the ON state and the OFF state, Paragraph 0063. However, Gadhai, He, He(2) and Ali do not specifically teach of wherein the UE is determined to be located within its coverage when a difference value between the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Li teaches of the network node determine whether to switch from off to on or to on to off by comparing the signal strength (e.g., RSRP and/or SINR) to a threshold (Paragraph 0121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined that the UE is located within its coverage when a difference value between the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the ON state of the repeater and the strength of the SRS received by the base station in the OFF state of the repeater is greater than a predetermined threshold so as to necessitate the use of the repeater for accurate and efficient communication between the BS and the UE.
Re claim 13, Gadhai, He, He(2), Ali and Li teach all the limitations of claim 12, as well as He(2) teaches of wherein when the UE is determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters (NCR1, NCR2, Fig.5), one repeater is identified as having the UE within its coverage based on strength of SRS received by the base station (RSRP, Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131) while each of the multiple repeaters is sequentially turned ON and OFF (sequentially turned ON and OFF as shown in Fig.5, Paragraphs 0121 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters, one repeater is identified as having the UE within its coverage based on strength of SRS received by the base station while each of the multiple repeaters is sequentially turned ON and OFF to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication.
Re claim 14, Gadhai, He, He(2), Ali and Li teach all the limitations of claim 12, as well as He(2) teaches of wherein when the UE is determined to be located within coverage of multiple repeaters (Fig.5), a repeater group including one repeater having the UE located within the coverage is first identified from a plurality of repeater groups based on strength of SRS received by the base station (RSRP, Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131 – 0132) while each repeater in the plurality of repeater groups is sequentially turned ON and OFF (as shown in Fig.5), and the one repeater is then identified based on the strength of the SRS received by the base station while each of multiple repeaters in the determined repeater group is sequentially turned ON and OFF (Paragraphs 0117 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have identified the coverage and the repeater based on strength of SRS received by the base station to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadhai, He, He(2) and Ali in view of Maamari.
Re claim 15, Gadhai, He, He(2) and Ali teach all the limitations of claim 11 as well as He(2) teaches of the repeater is determined to have the UE located within its coverage based on a an SRS received by the base station (Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0117 and 0131 – 0132). However, Gadhai, He, He(2) and Ali do not specifically teach of having each UE receive a sequence applied to SRS by the base station, among sequences each configured differently for each of the multiple UEs.
Maamari teaches of have each UE receive a sequence applied to SRS by the base station, among sequences each configured differently for each of the multiple UEs (Fig. 6 and Paragraph 0158).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the repeater is determined to have the UE located within its coverage based on an SRS received by the base station to enable the selection of the best repeater for data communication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sequences applied to SRS each configured differently for each of the multiple repeaters so as to avoid interference between the multiple repeaters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights