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 § 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 1, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 18-20, 22, 23, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini et al. (US 20210126694 A1), hereinafter, Abedini, in view of Jung et al. (US 20180152921 A1), hereinafter, Jung.
Regarding claim 1:
Abedini discloses an apparatus for wireless communications (Fig. 3, base station 310), comprising:
at least one memory (Fig. 3, memory 376) comprising executable instructions (Paragraph [0066]); and
one or more processors (Fig. 3, processors 375, 316 and 370; see paragraphs [0066], ]0067]) configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the apparatus to:
obtain at least one report indicating information regarding candidate beams (Paragraphs [0121]-[0125], beam management including measurements indicative of the strengths and/or qualities of candidate beam pair links is claimed obtaining of at least one report indicating information regarding candidate beams);
select, from the candidate beams, a pair of beams based on the information (Paragraphs [0121]-[0125], beam pair with the best quality is selected ); and
output, for transmission, signaling indicating that at least one equipment is to use the pair of beams for wireless communications on a first link and a second link (Paragraphs [0071], [0101], [0121]-[0125], base station selects a beam pair to be conveyed to a relay device so as to configure the relay device to use the beam pair for wireless communication on uplink (claimed first link) and downlink (claimed second link), configuration signal is claimed signaling).
Thus, Abedini discloses all the limitations above, but fails to explicitly disclose the relay equipment is user equipment (UE) for full duplex wireless communications
However, Jung discloses relay user equipment (UE) for full duplex wireless communications (Paragraph [0252]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Abedini’s communication apparatus such that the relay is a UE relay used for full duplex wireless communications as disclosed by Jung. It would have been obvious because Jung’s teaching allows for communication with a UE that is remote to the base station via another UE that is closer to the base station even in the absence of a dedicated relay device and allows for simultaneous transmission and reception of signals.
Regarding claim 6:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 1 above. Abedini further discloses the apparatus wherein the information comprises at least one of: a self-interference (SI) measurement; a crosslink interference (CLI) measurement; a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) measurement; a reference signal (RS) receive power (RSRP) measurement; a reference signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement; a candidate beam identifier (ID); or an ID of a second UE associated with at least one of the candidate beams (Paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 8:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 1 above. Abedini further discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the apparatus to output, for transmission, a request for at least one of: the at least one report; or measurement information regarding the candidate beams (Fig. 7, paragraph [0155], beamforming configuration information is transmitted to the relay).
Regarding claim 9:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 8 above. Abedini further discloses the apparatus, wherein the request indicates at least one of: a candidate beam pair to include in the at least one report; a candidate beam pair to perform measurements for; a measurement type; a beam identifier (ID); or time and frequency resources for measurement (Paragraphs [0071], [0101], [0121]-[0125], [0155], candidate beam pair selected is included in beam configuration information).
Regarding claim 14:
Abedini discloses an apparatus for wireless communications (Fig. 1, relay 106), comprising:
at least one memory comprising executable instructions (Paragraphs [0030], [0031]); and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the apparatus to (Paragraphs [0030], [0031]):
obtain signaling indicating a pair of beams that the apparatus is to use for wireless communications on a first link and a second link (Paragraphs [0071], [0101], [0121]-[0125], base station selects a beam pair to be conveyed to a relay device so as to configure the relay device to use the beam pair for wireless communication on uplink (claimed first link) and downlink (claimed second link), configuration signal received by relay device is claimed obtaining of claimed signaling); and communicate using the pair of beams in accordance with the signaling (Paragraph [0071], [0121]-[0125],[0157], relay device uses the beam pair configured by the base station for communicating with the base station).
Thus, Abedini discloses all the limitations above, but fails to explicitly disclose the relay equipment for full duplex wireless communications
However, Jung discloses relay user equipment (UE) for full duplex wireless communications (Paragraph [0252]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Abedini’s communication apparatus such that the relay is used for full duplex wireless communications as disclosed by Jung. It would have been obvious because Jung’s teaching allows for simultaneous transmission and reception of signals.
Regarding claim 18:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 15 above. Abedini further discloses the apparatus, wherein the pair of beams comprises: a first beam for the apparatus to use for transmission to a wireless device on the first link (Paragraphs [0071], [0101], [0121]-[0125], relay device is configured use the beam pair for wireless communication on uplink (claimed first link) and downlink (claimed second link), i.e. a first beam for the apparatus to use for transmission to a wireless device (base station) on the first link (uplink)); and
a second beam for the apparatus to use for reception from the wireless device on the second link (Paragraphs [0071], [0101], [0121]-[0125], relay device is configured use the beam pair for wireless communication on uplink (claimed first link) and downlink (claimed second link), i.e. a second beam for the apparatus to use for reception from the wireless device (base station) on the second link (downlink)).
Regarding claim 19:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 14 above. Abedini further discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the apparatus to output, for transmission, at least one report indicating information regarding candidate beams (Paragraphs [0180]-[0186], relay device performs measurements to determine candidate beams and transits the measurements to indicate the candidate beams to the base station, i.e. outputs, for transmission, at least one report indicating information regarding candidate beams).
Regarding claim 20:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 19 above. Abedini further discloses the apparatus, wherein the information comprises at least one of: a self-interference (SI) measurement; a crosslink interference (CLI) measurement; a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) measurement; a reference signal (RS) receive power (RSRP) measurement; a reference signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement; a candidate beam identifier (ID); or an ID of a wireless device associated with at least one of the candidate beams (Paragraphs [0183]).
Regarding claim 22:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 19 above. Abedini further discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the apparatus to obtain a request for at least one of: the at least one report; or measurement information regarding the candidate beams (Paragraph [0180], base station transmits reference signals 822 in order for the relay device to perform measurements for selecting candidate beams, i.e. claimed request is obtained).
Regarding claim 23:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 22 above. Abedini further discloses the apparatus wherein the request indicates at least one of: a candidate beam pair to include in the at least one report; a candidate beam pair to perform measurements for; a measurement type; a beam identifier (ID); or time and frequency resources for measurement (Paragraph [0180], reference signals maybe SS/PBCH block, a CSI-RS, another type of downlink reference (or synchronization) signal, or a combination of at least two reference signals, i.e. request indicates time and frequency resource for measurement).
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Jung as applied to claims 1 and19 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 20190158162 A1), hereinafter, Ryu.
Regarding claim 7:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 1 above, but fail to disclose the apparatus, wherein the at least one report is at least one of: periodically scheduled; semi-persistently scheduled; aperiodically scheduled; or event triggered.
However, Ryu discloses beam management for wireless communications between base station and UE relay wherein the at least one report is at least one of: periodically scheduled; semi-persistently scheduled; aperiodically scheduled; or event triggered (Paragraphs [0103]-[0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Abedini’s communication apparatus as modified by Jung to schedule or trigger the report as disclosed by Ryu. It would have been obvious because Ryu’s teaching allows for a way to ensure report is obtained even with changing conditions.
Regarding claim 21:
Abedini and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 19 above, but fail to disclose the apparatus, wherein the at least one report is at least one of: periodically scheduled; semi-persistently scheduled; aperiodically scheduled; or event triggered.
However, Ryu discloses beam management for wireless communications between base station and UE relay wherein the at least one report is at least one of: periodically scheduled; semi-persistently scheduled; aperiodically scheduled; or event triggered (Paragraphs [0103]-[0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Abedini’s communication apparatus as modified by Jung to schedule or trigger the report as disclosed by Ryu. It would have been obvious because Ryu’s teaching allows for a way to ensure report is obtained even with changing conditions.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 2, 3 and 25 respectively of prior U.S. Patent No. 12316424 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12316424 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because said claims of instant application are merely a broader version of said patented claims and thus anticipated by said patented claims. Instant claim 15 uses the term wireless device, which is a broad way of describing a UE as claimed in patented claim 12. Instant claim 18 uses the term wireless device, which is a broad way of describing a wireless node as claimed in patented claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5pm.
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, David C. Payne can be reached on 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights