CTNF 17/995,837 CTNF 93502 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Authorization for Internet Communication To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without the written authorization in place, USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP 502.03. Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related solely to newly added limitations addressed in the instant Office Action with newly identified prior art, thus rendering applicant’s arguments moot. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 10-11, 20-24 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 2019/0349951) in view of Chaponniere et al. (US 2019/0116520, “Chaponniere”) . Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ahmad unless otherwise mentioned. Ahmad comprises the following features: With respect to independent claims: Regarding claim 1 , a policy control function (PCF) device of a wireless communication system, the PCF device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Theses will be discussed in view of Chaponniere.), cause the PCF device to at least: provide, to a user equipment (UE), a UE route selection policy (This will be discussed in view of Chaponniere.), wherein the UE is configured to use another UE as a UE-to-Network relay or to perform tethering with the another UE in device-to-device (D2D) communications ([0074] “a first WTRU (e.g., WTRU2) may be a relay WTRU that communicates with a network entity such as a RAN node via a Uu link. The RAN node may a base station (e.g., an eNB or gNB). WTRU2 may communicate with a remote WTRU (e.g., WTRU1) via a radio link interface such as a PC5 interface.”), wherein the UE route selection policy comprises a traffic descriptor (This will be discussed in view of Chaponniere.), wherein the traffic descriptor comprises a path preference parameter ([0104] “The relay WTRU may receive one or more parameters from a network entity (e.g., a base station) relating to PC5 connections through the relay WTRU.” This will also be clarified in view of Chaponniere.), wherein the path preference parameter indicates whether the wireless communication system prefers that the UE use the a PC5 connection with the another UE or a Uu connection with the wireless communication system when sending communications in an uplink direction ([0106] “The relay WTRU may receive connection priority information (e.g., retention priority) associated with a PC5 connection. The connection priority information may indicate a priority assigned to a PC5 connection from a specific remote WTRU. The connection priority information may be included in the relay authorization message described herein, for example.”, and [0107] “Upon receiving a connection request from a remote WTRU, the relay WTRU may determine whether to accept (e.g., grant) or reject the connection request. The determination may be made based on parameters received from the network (e.g., relating to PC5 AMBR), QoS information included in the connection request, and/or connection priority information associated with the remote WTRU (e.g., which may indicate whether a PC5 connection from the remote WTRU is possible at all).”), or whether the wireless communication system has no preference about whether the UE uses the PC5 connection or the Uu connection when sending the communications in the uplink direction (This alternative is not examined.), and wherein the D2D communications comprise at least one proximity-based service of the wireless communication system ([0072 and Fig. 2] “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example D2D communication architecture utilizing a Proximity Service (ProSe) function.”). It is noted that while disclosing PC5 interface with a remote WTRU, Ahmad does not specifically teach about a UE route selection policy. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Chaponniere as follows; at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor ([Chaponniere, 0064 and Fig. 3] “The core network device 300 may be implemented with a processing system 314 that includes one or more processors 304.”, and [Chaponniere, 0065 and Fig. 3] “The bus 302 communicatively couples together various circuits including one or more processors (represented generally by the processor 304), a memory 305,”), provide, to a user equipment (UE), a UE route selection policy ([Chaponniere, 0085] “the AMF may be configured to transparently deliver the URSP information 820 to the UE”) the UE route selection policy comprises a traffic descriptor ([Chaponniere, 0084] “The UE (e.g., 520, 626) may use the URSP information 820 to determine how to route outgoing traffic”), wherein the traffic descriptor comprises a path preference parameter ([Chaponniere, 0084] “such types of policy information may include quality of service (QoS) information 802, packet inspection information 804, packet routing and forwarding information 806, traffic usage reporting information 808, traffic steering control information 810, congestion management information 812, mobility and service area restriction information 814, RAT and/or frequency selection priority information 816, ANDSP information 818, and/or URSP information 820.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ahmad by using the features of Chaponniere in order to effectively control behavior of UEs using various types of policy information such that “The control plane message may include one or more types of policy information if a size of the one or more types of policy information is less than or equal to a maximum payload size of the control plane message” [Chaponniere, 0005]. Regarding claim 11 , it is an UE claim corresponding to the method claim 1 in a reciprocal way, except the limitations, “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor” (See Fig. 1B.), “send, based at least upon the path preference parameter in the traffic descriptor received in the UE route selection policy, a communication in the uplink direction via either the PC5 connection or the Uu connection” ([0074] “a first WTRU (e.g., WTRU2) may be a relay WTRU that communicates with a network entity such as a RAN node via a Uu link.”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 21 , it is a method claim corresponding to the PCF device claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 22 , it is a method claim corresponding to the UE claim 11, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11. Regarding claim 23 , it is a CRM claim corresponding to the PCF device claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 24 , it is a CRM claim corresponding to the UE claim 11, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11. With respect to dependent claims: Regarding claims 10, 20 and 28 , the PCF device of claim 1 and the UE of claim 11, respectively, wherein the wireless communication system is a fifth generation (5G) system ([0072] “a first WTRU (e.g., WTRU1) and a second WTRU (e.g., WTRU2) may communicate with an E-UTRAN network (e.g., a base station such as an eNB or gNB) via a Uu interface such an LTE-Uu interface or a 5G new radio interface.”) and the D2D communication is a proximity- based service ([0072] “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example D2D communication architecture utilizing a Proximity Service (ProSe) function.”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3 and 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 2019/0349951) in view of Chaponniere et al. (US 2019/0116520, “Chaponniere”) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0159527, “Lee”) . Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ahmad unless otherwise mentioned. Regarding claims 2 and 12 , it is noted that while disclosing a relaying system between WTRUs, Ahmad does not specifically teach about receiving capability information by a UE. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Lee as follows; the PCF device of claim 1 and the UE of claim 11, respectively, wherein the traffic descriptor comprises connection capabilities information ([Lee, 0137] “In step 913 and step 915, the AMF 215 may deliver a registration accept message including the parameter information for the V2X service obtained from the PCF 240 to the UE 110a via the gNB 210. At this time, the AMF 215 may determine information to be provided to the gNB 210 using the registration accept message ”) comprising a value indicating a capability of a connection to be used by the UE, when sending the communication ([Lee, 0138] “if the UE capability includes the V2X capability indication and the NR PC5 capability, and the gNB capability includes the V2X support, the registration accept message transmitted in step 913 may include at least one of V2X service authorized indication”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ahmad by using the features of Lee in order to achieve high capacity and high data rates such that “a method for effectively processing policy and parameter information for providing a service in a wireless communication system” [Lee, 0011]. Regarding claims 3 and 13 , the PCF device of claim 2 and the UE of claim 12, respectively, wherein the value indicates the at least one proximity- based service of the wireless communication system as the capability of the connection to be used when sending the communication (Lee, [0138] “one of V2X service authorized indication (e.g., a of <Table 1>), UE-PC5-AMBR for NR PC5 (e.g., c of <Table 1>), PLMN list for the UE 110a to use the PC5 communication (e.g., d of <Table 1>), cross-RAT PC5 control authorization (e.g., e of <Table 1>), and policy container including the policy/parameter information related to the NR PC5 among the V2X service policies and parameters for the direct communication (e.g., ProSe) of <Table 2>.”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 2019/0349951) in view of Chaponniere et al. (US 2019/0116520, “Chaponniere”) and further in view of Chun et al. (US 2018/0184270, “Chun”) . Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ahmad unless otherwise mentioned. Regarding claims 4 and 14 , it is noted that while disclosing a relaying system between WTRUs, Ahmad does not specifically teach about receiving capability information by a UE. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Chun as follows; the PCF device of claim 1 and the UE of claim 11, respectively, wherein the traffic descriptor comprises tethering capabilities information, wherein the tethering capabilities information comprises at least one value indicating a tethering method to be used by the UE when sending communication ([Chun, 0181] “the service provider or the organization determines whether the UE is used as an RSU or a relay node according to its own determination criteria. The determined content is forwarded to the UE using a prescribed communication protocol. The UE operates as an RSU or a relay node according to the indication.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ahmad by using the features of Chun in order to efficiently design an infrastructure for providing a V2X communication service such that “a method of performing communication, which is performed by a UE (user equipment) with network nodes in V2X (vehicle to everything) communication environment, includes the steps of transmitting a first message including capability information of the UE capable of operating as an RSU (road side unit) for providing a V2X service” [Chun, 0007] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 2019/0349951) in view of Chaponniere et al. (US 2019/0116520, “Chaponniere”) and Chun et al. (US 2018/0184270, “Chun”), and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2019/0253869, “Xu”) . Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ahmad unless otherwise mentioned. Regarding claims 5 and 15 , the PCF device of claim 4 and the UE of claim 14, respectively, wherein the one or more values comprises a value indicating whether one of the at least one proximity-based service of the wireless communication system is to be used by the UE as the tethering method or another value to indicate whether Bluetooth is to be used by the UE as the tethering method ([Chun, 0174] “PC5 interface: This means an interface used for direct communication between two UEs. This interface is used for communication between devices supportive of ProSE (proximity service).”). It is noted that while disclosing a relaying system between WTRUs, Ahmad does not specifically teach about a Bluetooth for relaying. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Xu as follows; a value to indicate Bluetooth as the tethering method ([Xu, 0138] “if the first relay function parameter set includes access modes {WLAN, Bluetooth communication}”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ahmad by using the features of Chun in order to efficiently utilize resources including battery power such that “a method for controlling device-to-device discovery and a related device, to reduce a futile discovery process.” [Xu, 0004] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 17, 25 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 2019/0349951) in view of Chaponniere et al. (US 2019/0116520, “Chaponniere”) and further in view of Dees et al. (US 2022/0369215, “Dees”) . Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ahmad unless otherwise mentioned. Regarding claims 7 and 17, 25 and 27 , it is noted that while disclosing a relaying system between WTRUs, Ahmad does not specifically teach about parameters for setting up a connection. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Dees as follows; the PCF device of claim 1 and the UE of claim 11, respectively, wherein the path preference parameter comprises one of: Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (See above [Dees, 0182 and Fig. 4]), Data Network Name (DNN), a path selection rule between direct and indirect proximity-based service communication over the PC5 connection, security credentials, and a parameter for the PC5 connection for communication of the at least one proximity-based service of the wireless communication system (These alternatives are not examined.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ahmad by using the features of Dees in order to shorten time in setting up connection such that “a proper selection of a relay device that can provide to a mobile device an indirect connection to the cellular communication system.” [Dees, 0031] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 18 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 2019/0349951) in view of Chaponniere et al. (US 2019/0116520, “Chaponniere”) and further in view of Chin et al. (US 2020/0007450) . Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ahmad unless otherwise mentioned. Regarding claims 8, 18 and 26 , it is noted that while disclosing a relaying system between WTRUs, Ahmad does not specifically teach about providing a selection policy. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Chin as follows; the PCF device of claim 1 and the UE of claim 17, respectively, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the PCF device to at least: determine one of the following: that the UE has completed a registration procedure with the wireless communication system, that the UE has initiated or completed a roaming procedure to another communication system other than the wireless communication system (These alternatives are not examined.), that the UE route selection policy for the UE has changed ([Chin, 0071] “given that WLANSP rules in ANDSP for 5GS may be equivalent of WLANSP rules in ANDSF for EPS as described herein, and to maintain the current behavior of UEs in EPS with regards to access network discovery and selection without impact by new 5GS policies, a UE may apply ANDSP for node selection whenever ANDSP is provisioned regardless of the core network to which the UE is registered.”), that the UE has requested provisioning of the UE route selection policy, and that a time interval elapsed (This alternative is not examined.), wherein the UE route selection policy is provided to the UE in response to the determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ahmad by using the features of Chun in order to provide continuity such that “The method generally includes selecting at least one policy for routing of data traffic to a network, wherein the policy comprise an access network discovery and selection policy (ANDSP)” [Chin, 0009]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov. 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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. /HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 2 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 3 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 4 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 5 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 6 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 7 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 8 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 9 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 10 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 11 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 12 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 13 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 14 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 17/995,837 Page 15 Art Unit: 2411
Prosecution Insights