DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on 13 August 2025 in which claims 1-6, 19-20, 22-31 are currently pending and claims 7-18, 21 have been cancelled.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 19-20, 22, 25, 27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talebi Fard et al. (PG Pub US 2022/0353799 A1) in view of Liao et al. (PG Pub US 2015/0029866 A1) and Ganesan et al. (PG Pub US 2023/0171199 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19, 20, Talebi Fard discloses a method, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a terminal.
a memory and a processor, wherein a computer program executable on the processor is stored on the memory, wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (fig. 3):
transmit relay request information in response to a demand for forwarding data, wherein the relay request information is used to request an assignment of a relay UE for forwarding the data (“a UE may send to a relay UE, a solicitation message to establish a connection with a network via the relay UE .. The solicitation message may comprise a discoverer information comprising information about the UE (remote UE), a relay service code comprising information about connectivity that a discoverer UE is interested in, a UE identifier, and/or the like” [0327], “if the service request may be triggered for user data” [0196]);
receive relay response information, wherein the relay response information comprises a relay ID of a relay UE assigned to forward the data (“The UE may receive from the relay UE, a response message .. The response message may be a solicitation response (discovery response) message. The solicitation response message may comprise an identifier of the relay UE” [0327]); and
transmit a data packet, wherein the data packet comprises the data and the relay ID (“The UE may select the relay UE based on the first mobility restriction of the relay UE. The UE may send to the relay UE, a connection setup request. The connection setup request may be a PC5 connection request .. The UE may send to the relay UE data packets” [0327], “The ProSe Relay UE ID may comprise a link layer identifier that is used for direct communication and is associated with a Relay Service Code” [0324]).
However, Talebi Fard does not explicitly disclose transmitting/receiving to/from a base station.
Nevertheless, Liao discloses “the relay UE transmits a relay service request to the network, after the relay UE has received the relay discovery request(s) from the remote UE” [0154], “After the network decides the relay UE, in step S735 the network transmits a relay service response to the selected relay UE, including the UE ID of the selected relay UE” [0156], “the relay UE may transmit a relay discovery response to the remote UE. The relay discovery response is utilized for the remote UE to synchronize with the UE” [0158].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit/receive to/from a base station because “the network estimate received signal strength of these received relay service requests and selects a relay UE with the best signal strength. In another example, the network can select the relay UE by consideration on any other requirement, e.g., group identifier” [0155].
In addition, Talebi Fard, Liao discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Talebi Fard, Liao does not explicitly disclose the data packet comprises the relay ID.
Nevertheless, Ganesan discloses “a remote unit 102 may transmit data and first information indicating relay information .. the first information comprises a relay identifier” [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the data packet comprise the relay ID because it will “enhance the reliability of message reception by member UEs” [0054].
Regarding claims 2, 22, 27, Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Talebi Fard discloses the relay request information comprises mobility indication information of a source UE for transmitting the relay request information (“a UE may send to a relay UE, a solicitation message to establish a connection with a network via the relay UE, the solicitation message comprising a second mobility restriction information of the UE comprising at least one of one or more closed access group (CAG) identifiers of the UE, radio access type (RAT) restriction, forbidden area, service area restrictions, core network type restriction, and/or the like” [0323]).
Regarding claims 5, 25, 30, Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Talebi Fard discloses the relay UE assigned to forward the data is selected from at least one candidate relay UE in the vicinity of the source UE, at least based on a communication distance between the candidate relay UE and the source UE, a distance between adjacent relay UEs and/or a mobility of the candidate relay UE, wherein the source UE is UE for transmitting the relay request information (“when a relay wireless device provides mobility restriction and/or access status information during discovery, the remote wireless devices may select an appropriate relay node based on the information” [0282], “The UE may select the relay UE based on the first mobility restriction of the relay UE .. The UE may select the relay UE based on the first mobility restriction of the relay UE” [0327], “The selection process (e.g., vetting of the candidates) may involve consumption of processing power by the remote wireless device” [0276]).
Claims 3-4, 23-24, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan in view of Dees et al. (PG Pub US 2022/0369215 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 23, 28, Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan does not explicitly disclose in a case that the mobility indication information of the source UE indicates that the source UE has weak mobility, the relay UE assigned to forward the data is selected based on an absolute position of the source UE.
Nevertheless, Dees discloses “the discovery message may include distance measurement data or other type of location information, for example speed (which may be absolute speed or relative speed) and/or heading/direction information of the mobile device. The mobile device 110 and/or the relay device may be arranged to perform a distance measurement between the mobile device and a relay device. The connection processor 112 may be arranged to enable a distance measurement and to transfer the measured distance to the network for determining location data of the mobile device and/or the relay device. By receiving one or more distance measurements between the mobile device and relay devices, the NRF is enabled to enhance the selection of the relay devices. In practice, the location data based on receiving the transmissions from mobile devices are not very accurate, e.g. having a tolerance of 100 m. On the contrary, local distance measurements are much more accurate, e.g. having a tolerance of 1 m. Combining multiple locations of multiple mobile devices with the distances between such located devices may increase the accuracy of the location data” [0206], “For an IoT slice: a non-mobile, mains-powered node with ample resources and high speed connectivity may be preferred as a relay UE above a battery-powered, mobile, low-resource IoT sensor” [0234], “For a V2X slice: using a relay UE that is moving into the same direction as the requesting UE may be preferred. Even if the relay UE is not in the same V2X slice” [0237].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, in a case that the mobility indication information of the source UE indicates that the source UE has weak mobility, have the relay UE assigned to forward the data be selected based on an absolute position of the source UE because “By receiving one or more distance measurements between the mobile device and relay devices, the NRF is enabled to enhance the selection of the relay devices” [0206].
Regarding claims 4, 24, 29, Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Dees discloses in a case that the mobility indication information of the source UE indicates that the source UE has strong mobility, the relay UE assigned to forward the data is selected based on a relative position between the source UE and the relay UE (“the discovery message may include distance measurement data or other type of location information, for example speed (which may be absolute speed or relative speed) and/or heading/direction information of the mobile device. The mobile device 110 and/or the relay device may be arranged to perform a distance measurement between the mobile device and a relay device. The connection processor 112 may be arranged to enable a distance measurement and to transfer the measured distance to the network for determining location data of the mobile device and/or the relay device. By receiving one or more distance measurements between the mobile device and relay devices, the NRF is enabled to enhance the selection of the relay devices. In practice, the location data based on receiving the transmissions from mobile devices are not very accurate, e.g. having a tolerance of 100 m. On the contrary, local distance measurements are much more accurate, e.g. having a tolerance of 1 m. Combining multiple locations of multiple mobile devices with the distances between such located devices may increase the accuracy of the location data” [0206], “For an IoT slice: a non-mobile, mains-powered node with ample resources and high speed connectivity may be preferred as a relay UE above a battery-powered, mobile, low-resource IoT sensor” [0234], “For a V2X slice: using a relay UE that is moving into the same direction as the requesting UE may be preferred. Even if the relay UE is not in the same V2X slice” [0237]).
Claims 6, 26, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan in view of Li et al. (WO 2016/185285 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 26, 31, Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Talebi Fard, Liao, Ganesan does not explicitly disclose transmitting the data to all candidate relay UEs in the vicinity of the source UE, in a case that a request for obtaining the data is received again within a time period after the data packet is transmitted.
Nevertheless, Li discloses “the relay reselection request message of the remote UE is successfully received by candidate relay UEs within the network (e.g., it is supposed that UE1, UE2, and UE3 in Fig. 1 have received the message)” [0062], “when the remote UE determines that the D2D link quality and/or backhaul link quality determined in step 106 is lower than respective predefined thresholds (it is determined to be yes in step 107), the remote UE transmits a relay reselection request message to request for reselecting a relay UE” [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit the data to all candidate relay UEs in the vicinity of the source UE, in a case that a request for obtaining the data is received again within a time period after the data packet is transmitted because “The relay reselection request message may indicate quality degradation of the D2D link and/or backhaul link, and therefore, it is required to reselect another relay UE” [0058].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 CHRISTINE T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 10/14/2025