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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, 12 and 13 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. Claims 2-5, 8-9 and 11 have not been specifically addressed by Applicants at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kalhan (US 2018/0152915, previously cited).
RE claims 1, 10, 12 and 13, Kalhan discloses a method of transmitting data by a remote user equipment (UE), a remote user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, and processor configured to perform operations for a remote user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store at least one computer program including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for a remote user equipment (UE), (Paragraph 50 and Figure 8.) comprising: establishing, a remote user equipment (UE), a connection with a relay UE (Figure 6 and paragraphs 41-47 teaches steps following a Remote UE performing relay discovery and selection. The remote UE requests a Mode-2 resource allocation and the Relay UE sends an allocation of Mode 2 communication resources to the OoC UE device. The Relay-UE device transmits the resource allocation, which may be used by the OoC UE device or Remote-UE group for transmitting its data on the uplink path. The communication resources allocated to the OoC UE device or Remote-UE group may belong to the LTE Rel- 12 Mode 2 resource pool preconfigured for OoC UE devices (e.g., subset(s) of the Mode 2 resource pool.); and transmitting, by the remote UE, a signal based on a resource, wherein, based on the remote UE that is connected to the relay UE providing connectivity to a network for the remote UE, the remote UE is configured to only use a resource allocation mode 2 for determining the resource (Figure 6, at step 98, the Remote UE uses the mode 2 allocation to communicate data/signal to the eNB via the Relay UE. The remote UE is Out of Coverage and thus unable to and not configured to utilize resources directly allocated by the eNB. This is contrast to Figure 3 and Paragraphs 30-31 which discloses an alternative whereby LTE mode 1 resources are first allocated by the eNB to a relay UE, the relay UE then uses those same resources to communicate with the remote UE. “This approach is indifferent to whether the remote UE is the InC remote UE device 18 or OoC UE device 16.”).
RE claim 3, Kalhan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kalhan further discloses wherein after the remote UE establishes the connection with the relay UE, the remote UE is not allowed to transmit signals based on resources received from a base station (Figure 6, at step 98, the Remote UE uses the mode 2 allocation to communicate data/signal to the eNB via the Relay UE. The remote UE is Out of Coverage and thus unable to and not configured to utilize resources directly allocated by the eNB. Paragraphs 43-47 further discloses that Mode 2 resources are indicated only by the Relay UE, and “The third example procedure has several advantages. For example, the Relay-UE device does not need to first request resources from the eNB 12 because these resources do not belong to Mode 1 resource pool. This avoids signaling overhead and additional latency.”. This is contrast to Figure 3 and Paragraphs 30-31 which discloses an alternative whereby LTE mode 1 resources are first allocated by the eNB to a relay UE, the relay UE then uses those same resources to communicate with the remote UE. “This approach is indifferent to whether the remote UE is the InC remote UE device 18 or OoC UE device 16.” Mode 2 resources for an OoC UE are exclusive from the Mode 1 resource pool which belong to the eNB and in coverage UEs and relay UEs. Thus, thew remote UE is “not allowed” to use the Mode 1 resources from a base station/eNB).
RE claim 4, Kalhan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kalhan further discloses wherein the relay UE uses resources received from a base station even after the connection is established (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 30-31 which discloses an alternative whereby LTE mode 1 resources are first allocated by the eNB to a relay UE, the relay UE then uses those same resources to communicate with the remote UE. “This approach is indifferent to whether the remote UE is the InC remote UE device 18 or OoC UE device 16.”. Thus, all UEs involved are using resources allocated and controlled by the eNB.)
RE claim 5, Kalhan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kalhan further discloses wherein the signal is transmitted to a base station through the relay UE (Figure 6, remote out of coverage UE is connected to and provided services of the eNB via the relay UE.).
RE claim 8, Kalhan discloses he method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kalhan further discloses wherein the second resource is related to sidelink resource allocation mode 2 of the remote UE (Figure 6, Mode 2 resources are allocated by the Relay UE to establish a direct connection to the remote UE).
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalhan in view of Lee et al. (US 10,111,321, Lee hereafter, previously cited).
RE claim 9, Kalhan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Kalhan does not explicitly disclose wherein the resource is related to transmission of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) or a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH).
However, Lee teaches wherein the resource is related to transmission of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) or a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH). (Column 8, lines 25-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Kalhan with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalhan in view of Hyde et al. (US 2014/0349569, Hyde hereafter, previously cited).
RE claim 11, Kalhan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kalhan further discloses wherein the remote UE communicates with at least one of another UE, the base station, or a network (As shown in at least figure 6 of Kalhan. The Remote UE communicates with a eNB/Base station/Network via a Relay UE).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose the remote UE communicates with a UE related to an autonomous driving vehicle.
However, Hyde teaches the remote UE communicates with a UE related to an autonomous driving vehicle (Paragraph 41 teaches a relay may be in the form of various devices including a user equipment (UE), a mobile station (MS), a wireless component for a vehicle, a roving transceiver, a wireless device that moves under its own power or control (e.g., an autonomous motorized robot or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)), a wireless device that moves under the power or control of another entity (e.g., a vehicle or a remotely-piloted craft that is controlled by either a passenger or a remote human or by a remote machine), or a combination thereof.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method Kalhan with the teachings of Hyde since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
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 James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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 D Vu can be reached at 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.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights