DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11, 46, and 55-72 are pending.
Notice of 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 (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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 Jul 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that was filed on 29 Feb 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 28 Jul 2022, 22 Nov 2023, 7 Feb 2024, 27 Aug 2024, and 29 Apr 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 23 Jan 2025 is acknowledged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 58, 59, and 68 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, Ebrahim (cited on PTO-892, dated 10 Feb 2025) is now incorporated into the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
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 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.
Claim 71 recites three means-plus-function limitations: means for determining, means for transmitting, and means for establishing. Support for these limitations is found in the cited portions of the disclosure provided below:
means for determining (Spec., ¶¶117-118 teaches a UE determining if its measurements are within the range defined by a pair of RSRP/link quality thresholds when deciding if it should solicit being a relay UE to the base station),
means for transmitting (id. at ¶¶153, 162 – relay UE includes a transmitter using one or more antenna to transmit an announcement via a PC5 interface), and
means for establishing (id. at ¶156 – UE 410 and UE 415 exchange security mode messages to establish a relay sidelink communication [i.e. a handshake]).
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 46, 55-57, 61-65, and 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kim (US 20160198516) in view of Wei (US 20180213588) and Ebrahim Rezagah (US 20220337990).
Regarding claim 1, 46, and 71-72, Kim teaches a method, an apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable medium storing code for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor, memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine to operate as a relay UE based at least in part on . . . a set of thresholds configured for the first UE (Kim, ¶¶106-126 – a UE considers a plurality of thresholds that are provided to it by the network when deciding whether to be a relay UE);
transmit a relay discovery announcement on a sidelink channel indicating support for relay communications based at least in part on the determination to operate as the relay UE . . . (Kim, ¶¶140, 195 – after determining that it is capable of being a relay, a UE may announce its ability to other UEs using the PC5 interface described in ¶195); and
establish the relay communications with a second UE based at least in part on the transmission of the relay discovery announcement on the sidelink channel. Kim, ¶¶195-197 (the relay UE becomes the default router of packets for the remote UE after the relay UE has announced its ability).
Kim does not explicitly teach (1) “a reference signal received power measurement satisfying a high threshold and a low threshold of” a set of thresholds used for determining whether to operate as a relay or (2) “receiving, from a base station, a relay configuration including a Quality of Service (QoS) level of relay communications” or (3) a relay discovery announcement indicating “the QoS level of the relay communications included in the relay configuration.” However, regarding (1), Wei teaches a candidate UE using two thresholds for RSRP to determine if it should act as a relay UE. Wei, ¶¶10, 33. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the UE, taught by Kim, to use the two RSRP thresholds, as taught by Wei, in order to ensure the relay UE is neither very close to the cell center nor at the cell edge. Id. at ¶33.
The combination of Kim and Wei does not explicitly teach (2) “receiving, from a base station, a relay configuration including a Quality of Service (QoS) level of relay communications” or (3) a relay discovery announcement indicating “the QoS level of the relay communications included in the relay configuration.” However, Ebrahim teaches (1) a configuration command that includes additional information. Ebrahim, ¶181. The additional information includes one or more supported QoS levels (id. at ¶¶176, 178) and the configuration command is received by a relay UE from a base station. Id. at ¶¶83-84. Ebrahim also teaches (2) relay UEs that shares the quality of its links with remote UEs. Id. at ¶299. The quality of the links may be QoS levels. Id. at ¶¶300-304. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the relay UE, taught by the combination of Kim and Wei, to be configure for specific QoS requirements, as taught by Ebrahim, in order to allow either the remote UE or the base station to select a potential relay UE for end-to-end communication. Id. at ¶299 (last sentence) and ¶¶306, 308.
Regarding claims 2 and 55, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim also teaches receiving, from the second UE on the sidelink channel, a relay request to operate as the relay UE for the second UE, wherein the determination to operate as the relay UE is based at least in part on receiving the relay request. Kim, ¶¶97-99, 171-172 (upon receiving a request to relay, the relay UE evaluates its reference/threshold information to determine if it should accept the request).
Regarding claims 3 and 56, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim also teaches the relay UE informing other UEs of its relay function (Kim, ¶¶140, 162) and indicating “load information for the first UE, battery information for the first UE, the QoS level for the relay communications, or a combination thereof” (Ebrahim, ¶¶297, 300-305 – remote UEs are informed for link qualities and/or QoS between it and the destination via a relay UE), wherein the relay request is received based at least in part on the indication. Ebrahim, ¶¶299-300 (remote UE request UE to be a relay UE based on the link qualities and/or QoS it can provide in end-to-end communication).
Regarding claims 4 and 57, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim also teaches receiving a radio resource control message from the base station indicating a plurality of sets of thresholds comprising the set of thresholds. Kim, ¶107 (thresholds on number of UEs for which the relay UE can perform the relay role); Kim, ¶109 (thresholds on the number of groups that the relay UE can perform the relay role); Kim, ¶¶111-115 (thresholds on the amount of traffic that the relay UE is capable of relaying); etc.
Regarding claims 8 and 61, the combination of Kim and Wei teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 46, and a relay UE transmitting a discovery announcement. Kim, e.g. ¶140. Kim does not explicitly teach “reporting, to a base station, a reference signal measurement, load information for the first UE, battery information for the first UE, or any combination thereof; and receiving, from the base station, an indication to transmit the relay discovery announcement based at least in part on the reporting.” However, Ebrahim teaches a relay UE providing assistance information to the network. Ebrahim, ¶281. The assistance information may include battery status or reference signal received power, RSRP. Id. at ¶282. Based on the assistance information not meeting a requirement (id. at ¶¶254-255 – examples of reasons a UE may stop being a relay), the network may send a release message to the relay UE that discontinues the relay UE from advertising itself as a relay. Id. at ¶285. If the assistance information indicates a good link, then the relay UE continues to act as a relay, which includes providing discovery announcements. Id. at ¶¶170-172 (continue acting as relay), ¶¶10, 14 (relay sends discovery announcements). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the assistance information, taught by Ebrahim, to dictate when a UE should be a relay, as taught by the combination of Kim and Wei, in order to ensure that a suitable relay is chosen for the remote UE. Id. at ¶64.
Regarding claims 9 and 62, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim also teaches wherein the load information comprises a channel busy rate for the sidelink channel for the first UE. Ebrahim, ¶282 (UE transmits the assistance information due to “a high occupation of radio resources” [i.e. a channel busy rate])
Regarding claims 10 and 63, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim also teaches wherein the reference signal measurement, the load information, the battery information, or any combination thereof, is transmitted in a measurement report for radio resource management. Ebrahim, figure 11 (assistance information is used to determine if the network wants the relay UE to continue to act as a relay. The termination or continuation of that role inherently affects the ratio resources of the network [e.g. ¶288 – reduces occupation of sidelink resources when UE rejects being a relay).
Regarding claims 11 and 64, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim also teaches indicating, to the second UE, a quality of service level supported by the first UE for relay communications based at least in part on the transmission of the relay discovery announcement, wherein the quality of service level is indicated by a medium access control element or by an application code associated with a discovery announcement message. Ebrahim, ¶274 (assistance information, which is transmitted to remote UE in step 230’ in figure 12, includes QoS profile of relay UE); Ebrahim, ¶¶181, 290, 292 (additional information ,which includes QoS levels, is signaled by mapping certain codes to certain parameters).
Regarding claim 65, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim also teaches “receiv[ing], from the base station, a set of QoS levels comprising at least the QoS level for the relay communications, wherein the relay discovery announcement is transmitted on the sidelink channel based at least in part on the set of quality of service levels comprising the quality service level of the relay communications.” Ebrahim teaches a potential relay UE receiving a configuration command from a base station, where the command includes one or more supported QoS levels. Ebrahim, ¶¶176, 178, 181. The potential relay UE that shares its link qualities and QoS levels with remote UEs. Id. at ¶¶299-304.
Claims 7, 60, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wei and Ebrahim (all of record) and further in view of Bangolae (US 20180098370).
Regarding claims 7 and 60, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim teaches the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 46, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the determination to operate as the relay UE is further based at least in part on a mobility state of the first UE.” However, Bangolae teaches a relay mobility configuration parameter that is considered when a UE is thinking of acting as a relay. Bangolae, ¶¶41, 44. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider relay mobility, as taught by Bangolae, when a UE is considering whether to act as a relay, as taught by the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim, in order to prioritize low mobility UEs to act as relays. Id. at ¶44.
Regarding claim 66, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim teaches the apparatus of claim 46, but does not explicitly teach “receiv[ing], from the base station, a radio resource control configuration for a set of resources to transmit the relay discovery announcement on the sidelink channel.” However, Bangolae teaches an RRC message sent from an eNodeB to a relay UE that defines the resource allocation for a sidelink discovery announcement. Bangolae, ¶¶79-80. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the relay UE, taught by the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim, to receive an RRC message from the network, as taught by Bangolae, in order to ensure network control of all allocated resources, thus minimizing interference and congestion. Id. at ¶¶40, 83.
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wei and Ebrahim (all of record) and further in view of Baghel (US 20150208384).
Regarding claim 67, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim teaches the apparatus of claim 46 and a relay UE transmitting a discovery announcement on a sidelink channel. Kim, figure 6 (step 2 - discovery procedure). Kim does not explicitly teach “receiv[ing], from a base station, downlink control information scheduling the first UE a set of resources” for a discovery procedure. However, Baghel teaches a UE receiving a UE receiving a DCI signal that activates allocated D2D discovery resources. Baghel, ¶95. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a DCI, as taught by Baghel, for allocating D2D discovery resources, such as those used in the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim, in order to enable the network to allocate either common or dedicated D2D resources to the relay UE. Baghel, abstract and ¶111.
Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wei and Ebrahim (all of record) and further in view of Cheng (US 20160285934).
Regarding claim 69, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim teaches the apparatus of claim 46 and a relay UE executing a discovery procedure. Kim, figure 6 and ¶¶92-100. Kim does not explicitly teach “include[ing] an indicator in a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packet of the relay discovery announcement that the relay discovery announcement is associated with relay discovery.” However, Cheng teaches a relay UE including an indication in its broadcasted discovery message that it is able to support multicast transmission of multimedia content. Cheng, ¶¶10, 86. Cheng further teaches that a relay UE includes a PDCP layer. Cheng, figure 5 and ¶¶70, 72. The PDCP layer, in combination with the other protocol layer creates a packet. Id. at ¶71. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the discovery messages, taught by the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim, to be PDCP packets with an indication of the relay UE’s capabilities, as taught by Cheng, in order to provide MBMS traffic to edge UE via broadcast. Id. at ¶7.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wei and Ebrahim (all of record) and further in view of Ramachandra (US 20210144604).
Regarding claim 70, the combination of Kim, Wei, and Ebrahim teaches the apparatus of claim 46 and a relay UE receiving a message from a remote UE. Kim, figure 6 (e.g. solicitation message in model B of discovery process or router solicitation). Kim does not explicitly teach a device receiving “a measurement report of the . . . channel based at least in part on an L3 filtering of a reference signal measurement.” However, Ramachandra teaches a UE providing a measurement report after applying L3 filtering. Ramachandra, figure 3. The measurement results are based on a reference signal measurement. Ramachandra, ¶90 (CSI-RS). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the remote UE to report to the relay UE, taught by the combination of Kim and Wei, a filtered measurement report, as taught by Ramachandra, in order to generate measurements at the beam level for the sidelink channel. Ramachandra, ¶46.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461