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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While an updated search has resulted in Loehr et al. (US 2018/0069618 A1) being used to reject the claims, for a full response, relevant arguments of the After Final filed 8/11/2025 and corresponding responses including responses of the Advisory Action mailed 8/28/2025 are included below.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7 include A) “The PRACH is used solely to transmit the PRACH preamble 1 (see also paragraphs [0200], [0052], [0065] and [0066] of Prakash). The standard PRACH preamble neither contains nor indicates any identifier of a remote UE. None of the cited references explicitly, implicitly, inherently, or otherwise teaches modifying the standard PRACH preamble to contain the identifier of a remote UE”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “modifying the standard PRACH preamble to contain the identifier of a remote UE”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues “modifying the standard PRACH preamble to contain the identifier of a remote UE” while the (proposed) claims indicate “emitting a request, over a Physical Random-Access Channel (PRACH), to request resources of said network to relay said data, said request including an identifier of said object” which does not describe “modifying the standard PRACH preamble”, and while applicant has included some references that obstinately describes “Device transmission of a preamble, also referred to as the physical random-access channel (PRACH)”, claim language (i.e. “over a PRACH”) and applicant’s specification on page 4 includes
PNG
media_image1.png
152
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
94
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where 3GPP TS 36.211 “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical channels and modulation” release 8 describes PRACH on page 11 as
PNG
media_image3.png
220
868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and page 5 of the specification includes
PNG
media_image4.png
418
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and further, the entry for “RACH” in Wikipedia indicates “RACH is transport-layer channel; the corresponding physical-layer channel is PRACH” and thus, reasonably describes a channel carrying information, therefore use of RACH reasonably indicates use of PRACH, and claim limitations regarding PRACH is not limited as applicant argues. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7-8 include B) “The Examiner assumes that the motivation to combine the teachings of Prakash [US 2011/0242970 A1], Mallick [US 2017/0317740 A1], and Liao [US 2015/0029866 A1] is to improve battery life (pages 8-9 and 12-13 of the QA)”, “of the random access procedure would waste energy and run counter to the goal of improving battery life if the base station later fails to correctly decode Message 3 and therefore cannot transmit Message 4 to the relay UE” [emphasis by applicant].
Regarding B) Applicant’s arguments are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on page 8 include C) “Mallick teaches requesting resources for the relay discovery procedure and seeking permission from the radio base station to activate the relay function after the relay UE performs a random-access procedure (paragraphs [0209]-[0210] and [0291]-[0292]; see also the third paragraph on page 11 of the OA, which states, "relay UE and remote UE in-coverage; para. 152-154, in-coverage UEs are RRC_CONNECTED to BS")”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding C) In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 include D) “Applicant respectfully submits that transmitting the relay service request of Liao over the PRACH is not common sense. That is because transmitting the relay service request over the PRACH would risk higher energy consumption (see item ii) above) and would require modification of the standard Message 1 and the standard Message 2”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding D) applicant’s arguments are mere allegations without evidence, and selects a possible scenario (“risk higher energy consumption”) where battery life may not be improved [emphasis added] and provides an alternative solution (“Instead, when combining the teachings of Prakash, Mallick, and Liao to improve battery life, the POSITA would have used the relay RACH Message 3 of Prakash (paragraph [0203]) to transmit the relay service request of Liao (paragraph [0154])” [emphasis by applicant]). The examiner notes MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence, I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY, Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). Further, the examiner notes MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE [emphasis added], The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant [emphasis added]. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Still further, nothing in applicant’s argument has shown that references teach away from their combination (see MPEP 2145, X. ARGUING IMPROPER RATIONALES FOR COMBINING REFERENCES, D. References Teach Away from the Invention or Render Prior Art Unsatisfactory for Intended Purpose, 2. References Cannot Be Combined Where Reference Teaches Away from Their Combination). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
In light of the above, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
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.
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(s) 1, 3-5, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr et al. (US 2018/0069618 A1) hereinafter Loehr in view of Liao et al. (US 2015/0029866 A1) hereinafter Liao.
Regarding claim 1, Loehr teaches a method implemented by a device applying to relay data between an object and a base station in a cellular network (relay user equipment (UE) [device] serving as relay for another/remote UE [object]; para. 206, relay UE relaying between remote UE and eNodeB (BS); para. 265), the object and said device being synchronized and connected to the base station (relay UE connected [synchronized] to network; para. 237, remote UE in-coverage and connected to BS; para. 212), the method comprising: emitting a request, over a Physical Random-Access Channel (PRACH), to request resources of said network to relay said data (random access procedure (RACH) used when UE needs to transmit uplink data and not allocated uplink resources; para. 36, RACH used to request uplink resources to transmit data; para. 106, RACH used to request resources for transmission of remote data; para. 295-296); receiving a response to said request from said base station (relay UE receives response of scheduling request from BS; para. 296); and the device relaying the data or not relaying the data as a function of said response (based on response from BS, relay UE relays data of remote UE; para. 296, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
While Loehr variously discloses UE ID and radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) Loehr does not explicitly disclose said request including an identifier of said object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liao teaches said request including an identifier of said object (relay UE transmits relay service request to network including remote UE ID; para. 154 and Fig. 7 step S725).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Liao to the system of Loehr, where Loehr’s resource assignment for relays (para. 266) along with Liao’s relaying (para. [07, 50-51, 54, 118]) improves the system by efficiently assigning resources for relays for support of public safety.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Loehr and Liao teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Loehr further teaches wherein said request includes a request for resources from said network (RACH used to request uplink resources to transmit data; para. 106, RACH used to request resources for transmission of remote data; para. 295-296) that can be used by the device to transmit the device's own data (based on response from BS, relay UE relays data of both remote UE and relay UE; para. [296, 314]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Loehr and Liao teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While Loehr discloses UE ID and RNTI, Loehr does not explicitly disclose wherein said identifier is a temporary or permanent identifier.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liao further teaches wherein said identifier is a temporary or permanent identifier (relay UE transmits relay service request to network including remote UE ID; para. 154 and Fig. 7 step S725, UE using RNTI as IDs; para. 160 and para. 178 and para. 181-189, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Liao to the modified system of Loehr and Liao, where Loehr and Liao’s modified system along with Liao’s relaying (para. [07, 50-51, 54, 118]) improves the system by efficiently assigning resources for relays for support of public safety.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Loehr and Liao teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While Loehr discloses frames, subframes, slots, frequency, and resource blocks (time and frequency), Loehr does not explicitly disclose wherein said identifier is encoded into said request by a combination of a time slot and a frequency.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liao further teaches wherein said identifier is encoded into said request by a combination of a time slot and a frequency (relay UE uses radio resources; para. 79, requests / responses using messages on radio resources of time/interval/period and frequency; para. 159 and para. 162, messages on time/frequency resources; para. 181-182).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Liao to the modified system of Loehr and Liao, where Loehr and Liao’s modified system along with Liao’s relaying (para. [07, 50-51, 54, 118]) improves the system by efficiently assigning resources for relays for support of public safety.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a processor (relay UE includes processor; para. 338-339: Loehr); and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the processor (memory including software executed by processor; para. 355-356: Loehr).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallick et al. (US 2017/0317740 A1), hereinafter Mallick, in view of Loehr, and further in view of Liao.
Regarding claim 6, Mallick teaches a method implemented by a base station to select a single device from at least one applicant device for relaying data between an object and said base station in a cellular network (base station broadcasts message as relay activation trigger to activate corresponding [selected] UE as relay; para. 202-203, relay UE [device] acting as relay for data between remote UE [object] and base station; para. [253, 256], relay UE transmits request to base station to act as relay; para. 209-210, implementation with 3GPP; para. 251, eNB controls selection of relay UEs; para. [258, 287, 320-321]), the object and said single device being synchronized and connected to said base station (relay UE and remote UE in-coverage; para. 152-154, in-coverage UEs are RRC_CONNECTED to BS (synchronized and connected); para. 86, implementation with 3GPP; para. 251), the method comprising: receiving, from the at least one applicant device, a request emitted by the at least one applicant device (relay UE transmits request to base station to act as relay [desires]; para. 209-210).
While Mallick discloses random access procedure and requesting resources, Mallick does not explicitly disclose over a Physical Random-Access Channel (PRACH), to request resources of said network to relay said data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Loehr teaches over a Physical Random-Access Channel (PRACH), to request resources of said network to relay said data (random access procedure (RACH) [PRACH] used when UE needs to transmit uplink data and not allocated uplink resources; para. 36, RACH used to request uplink resources to transmit data; para. 106, RACH used to request resources for transmission of remote data; para. 295-296).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Loehr to the system of Mallick, where Mallick’s activation of relay functionality (para. 200-201 and para. 263) along with Loehr’s resource assignment for relays (para. 266) improves the system by efficiently assigning resources for relays.
While the combination of Mallick and Loehr variously discloses a response with resource allocation and rejection of relay requests, the combination of Mallick and Loehr does not explicitly disclose said request including an identifier of said object; selecting the single device from among said at least one applicant device; allocating resources in said network and sending a positive response to the selected single device; and sending a negative response to any non-selected device of the at least one applicant device for relaying the data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liao teaches said request including an identifier of said object (relay UE transmits relay service request to network including remote UE ID; para. 154 and Fig. 7 step S725); selecting the single device from among said at least one applicant device (network selects best relay UE; para. 155-156 and Fig. 7 step S735); allocating resources in said network and sending a positive response to the selected single device (relay UE resources assigned by network; para. [79, 99, 161, 181], network indicates acceptance of relay service; para. [17, 156, 170, 202]); and sending a negative response to any non-selected device of the at least one applicant device for relaying the data (network transmits rejection to unselected relay UE(s); para. [17, 156-157, 170, 202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Liao to the modified system of Mallick and Loehr, where Mallick and Loehr’s modified system along with Liao’s relaying (para. [07, 50-51, 54, 118]) improves the system by efficiently assigning resources for relays for support of public safety.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mallick, Loehr, and Liao teaches the limitation of previous claim 6.
The combination of Mallick and Loehr does not explicitly disclose wherein said positive response further includes said identifier of the object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liao further teaches wherein said positive response further includes said identifier of the object (relay UE transmits relay service request to network including remote UE ID; para. 154 and Fig. 7 step S725, response by BS to relay request includes ID of remote UE; para. [160, 178, 181-189]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Liao to the modified system of Mallick, Loehr, and Liao, where Mallick, Loehr, and Liao’s modified system along with Liao’s relaying (para. [07, 50-51, 54, 118]) improves the system by efficiently assigning resources for relays for support of public safety.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mallick, Loehr, and Liao teaches the limitation of previous claim 6.
Loehr further teaches wherein said request further includes a request for resources for said at least one applicant device's own data (RACH used to request uplink resources to transmit data; para. 106, RACH used to request resources for transmission of remote data; para. 295-296, relay UE relays data of both remote UE and relay UE; para. [296, 314]), and the method includes sending a response as to allocation of the resources for the at least one applicant device's own data (based on response from BS, relay UE relays data of both remote UE and relay UE; para. [296, 314]).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6, including a processor (base station includes processor; para. 345-347: Mallick); and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the processor (base station includes software executed by processor; para. 345-347: Mallick).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2020/0100088 A1) discloses a method for transmitting and receiving data through relay in wireless communication system and apparatus therefor.
Lee et al. (US 2018/0234862 A1) discloses a method for performing relay functions at UE in wireless communication system and apparatus therefor.
Wikipedia entry for Random-access channel describing PRACH as corresponding physical channel of RACH (web.archive.org/web/20161018203244/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_channel).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474