DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-01-05 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 22-23, 25, 31-34, 36-40, 42-50 are pending for consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on identified above has been entered.
35 USC §112(f) - Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim(s) and corresponding limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 42
means language: means for
non-structural language: receiving...
means language: means for
non-structural language: transmitting...
Claim(s) 43
means language: means for
non-structural language: receiving...
means language: means for
non-structural language: releasing the link based at...
Claim(s) 44
means language: means for
non-structural language: modifying the link based at...
Claim(s) 45
means language: means
non-structural language: for modifying the link further...
means language: means for
non-structural language: removing a packet filter associated...
Claim(s) 46
means language: means for
non-structural language: receiving remote UE data...
Claim(s) 48
means language: means for
non-structural language: receiving...
means language: means for
non-structural language: receiving the instructions via a...
35 USC §112(a) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claim(s) 1, 22, 31, 42 and 2-4, 6-10, 23, 25, 32-34, 36-40, 43-50
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims have been amended to recite variants of:
…receive, via a link between the wireless device, wherein the wireless device is a Layer 3 relay, and a remote user equipment (UE), a remote UE identifier, wherein the remote UE identifier is associated with a proximity services (ProSe) key management function (PKMF); and
transmit, to a session management function (SMF) device, a communication associated with a protocol data unit (PDU) session of the remote UE, wherein the communication is based at least in part on the wireless device being the Layer 3 relay,…
The Reply’s’ argument points to para. 0080-82 and 0090-92 for support. With regards to the limitation “wherein the communication is based at least in part on the wireless device being the Layer 3 relay” the closest disclosure among said paragraphs are:
[0084] Some techniques and apparatuses described herein enable PDU session management by a relay UE and SMF device. For example, a relay UE may associate a remote UE identifier with a PDU session identifier, which may be used to identify and manage network traffic for a particular remote UE, whether the PDU session is supporting one or multiple remote UEs. The relay UE may provide, to an SMF device, information enabling the SMF device to determine how network traffic associated with the relay UE is to be managed. The SMF may then provide instructions to the relay UE to enable the relay UE to manage the PDU session (e.g., by releasing or modifying the link between the relay UE and the remote UE).
[0094] As shown by reference number 635, the relay UE may transmit, and the SMF device may receive, a remote UE report. The remote UE report may include a communication associated with the PDU session of the remote UE and may include information indicating the identifier associated with the remote UE. For example, the remote UE report may indicate, to the SMF device, the associated PDU session identifier and relay UE data, such as the IP address of the remote UE, the MAC address of the remote UE and data indicating Ethernet type, the remote UE identifier associated with the PKMF, and/or one or more ProSe service types associated with the PDU session.
While it appears, these paragraph supports that the relay UE transmits communication associated with the relay UE’s role with respect to the relaying services for a remote UE, it does not support disclosure that the communication is particularly based on whether the relay is an Layer 3 relay. In other words, the Examiner agrees that the Specification supports: “wherein the communication is based at least in part on the wireless device being a not support “wherein the communication is based at least in part on the wireless device being the Layer 3 relay.”
To overcome this rejection, Examiner recommends amendments directed to the communication sent to the SMF, from the relay UE, is not dependent on whether the UE relay supports Layer 3.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 22, 31, 42 and 2-4, 6-10, 23, 25, 32-34, 36-40, 43-50
The independent claims recite:
receive, via a link between the wireless device, wherein the wireless device is a Layer 3 relay, and a remote user equipment (UE), a remote UE identifier,
Due to the run-on sentence nature and grammatical errors in limitation, it is unclear as to how to the limitation should be interpreted. More particularly when the inserted and wherein clauses are removed the limitation effectively:
“receive and a remote user equipment (UE), a remote UE identifier”
The above makes no sense. What is the being received? The “and” following “receive” is confusing – it’s as if another verb was accidently omitted – is it supposed to be “receive and decode a remote UE…” What verb should be invoked on the remote UE?
For the purposes of expedited prosecution, the Examiner’s guess is the intention was:
Relevant Cited References
XING - US20230199550 teaches “It can be learned that, in the layer 3 relay scenario, the SMF of the relay UE performs session management on a session used for relay.”
XING - US20230189054 teaches “For the layer 3 relay, the SMF establishes or modifies the PDU session for the relay UE, so that the relay UE provides a relay service for the remote UE.”
Examiner’s Notes
In the interest of expedited prosecution, the Examiner points to Xing references in the section above which teaches a communication from a Relay UE to SMF based on layer 3 relay scenarios. In other words, even if (1) the U.S.C. 112(a) was incorrect, it’s likely the independent claims would be rejected in view of Xing and other art already of record and (2) if amendments were made to only address the U.S.C. 112(a) (e.g., amendments directed to the communication sent to the SMF, from the relay UE, is not dependent on whether the UE relay supports Layer 3), it’s likely the independent claims would be rejected in view of Xing and other art already of record. The Examiner recommends going in another direction other than the L3 layer feature; it does not appear to be a strong point of novelty in view of Xing.
Response to Arguments
The Reply’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection(s), which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415