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 .
Amendments as filed 08/04/2026 is/are entered.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13-16, 18, 21, 34, 35, 38, 45, 51, and 52 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in Remarks are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Panteleeve does not disclose the amended claim 1 which now requires the first indication to indicate “a sidelink resource or control channel to be used when the relay path is selected”.
Panteleeve, ¶0070, expressively states “The eNB 102 transmits an indication of uplink (UL), downlink (DL) and/or sidelink (SL) radio resources to be used by the Remote UE 106 and/or Relay UEs to communicate with the eNB 102. The indicated radio resources may be on a sidelink interface between the remote UE 106 and one of the relay UEs in the case that a relay path is selected”, which directly reads on the added limitation of claim 1.
¶0110, Fig. 5a/6a confirms the indication can be a SL control channel used when the relay path is the selected path. ¶0156 discloses that the two-stage HARQ scenario uses a new sidelink HARQ channel, i.e. dedicated resources specific to the control information when the relay path is selected.
Applicant further argues Panteleeve is “framed as selectable transport options” (direct PUCCH/PUSCH vs. relay PSCCH/PSSCH) and that options allegedly are not the claimed configuration.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2131.02, anticipation does not require every disclosed alternative to meet the claim. It requires one disclosed arrangement to contain every limitation. In this case:
Panteleev’s Fig. 7c, and 0156 describe the two-station option as the UE 106 sends HARQ to the Relay UE 104, which forwards it to the eNB 102. In the very same disclosed system, after a relay path is selected, the eNB 102 indicates SL resources and control channel parameters for the UEs to use on that path per ¶058, 0070, 0110. Fig. 7a is a different option, it is irrelevant to whether Fig. 7c plus relay-path indication anticipates claim 1.
Furthermore, Applicant’s own Specification describes the very same structure that Applicant now in the Remark calls insufficient of Panteleeve: the gNB “configures a remote UE on which the above signaling options to apply/use”, including the direct PUCCH/PUSCH and relayed PSCCH/PSSCH (see the published Specification ¶0070-77, 0163). Applicant simply cannot selectively criticize Panteleev’s options as being not a configuration, while their own Specification treating the same option-list as such.
Regarding arguments for the language “ specific to control information relayed via the second wireless device”:
Applicant demands a reading that requires a configuration “specifically for the relayed control information”.
The claim does not require a dedicated control-only IE, a format different from a data grant, or a configuration that exclusive from other SL traffic. It merely requires a configuration for use for sending the control information that is specific to control information relayed via second device. The claim is too broad for any of the above claim interpterion, and it is noted that improper to read the Specifications in the claims.
In the embodiment mapped in the Office Action, the control information is the HARQ forwarded by the relay per ¶0156. The configuration the UE 106 receives is the SL resource/control channel used to forward the HARQ on the relay path per ¶070, 0110, 0156. ¶0156 discloses that the two-stage HARQ scenario uses a new sidelink HARQ channel, i.e. dedicated resources specific to the control information when the relay path is selected.
In case Applicant means the configuration must be limited to relayed control and exclude direct-path HARQ, that meaning is in Applicant’s Specification. The disclosed first indication actually selects among options that include direct HARQ (¶0070-0077, 0163) per the published Specification. Such an interpretation would also raise 35 USC 112(a). The examiner merely applies BRI consistent with Applicant’s own specification:” specific to” simply means being used for the relayed HARQ on the selected path, nothing about exclusivity.
The Remarks characterize claim 1 as “expressively claimed the configuration that points to a sidelink resource or control channel specifically for relayed control information when the relay path is selected”. The Specification as filed does not describe that structure. It merely describes an indication of which signaling option to use to send HARQ as discussed above. The wording “specific to” or “indicating a side link resource or control channel to be used when the relay path is selected” or equivalent simply do not exist.
The examiner will not give the claims a narrower reading than the Specification supports. The amendment is either (a) exactly what Panteleeve has in at least ¶0070, or (b) a brand new configuration that the instant Specification simply does not possess.
Applicant quotes the Office’s use of ¶0048, 0070, and ¶00150-0165 as if those were unrelated embodiment. In fact, Figs, 3-4 are the relay connection/resource flow. Figs. 7-8 are HARQ forwarding in that architecture. ¶0048, Fig. 2 is the eNB relay scheduler in the same eNB 102. That is one disclosure as a whole, not a combination of separate unrelated patents or inventions. See MPEP 2131.
Applicant further argues claim 45 is patentable for at least the reason as claim 1. However, it is not the same claim. Claim 45 is separately amended, reciting whether to use a direct uplink path or relay path. That is not the same as claim 1.
Per arguments regarding claim 21:
Applicant argues Liu discloses only general sidelink capability reporting and therefore does not teach a third indication of capability support for signaling relay-path control information over a sidelink interface. Applicant is reminded the claim 21 is addressed by the combination of Panteleev in view of Liu, not an anticipation-based rejection over Liu. Liu was cited only for the third indication for reporting of sidelink capability to the eNB so the network can configure D2D/SL path and resources for a supported air interface per ¶0018-0020, Figs. 2A-C). Panteleev already forwards the control information to the eNB on the sidelink interface of the relay path (¶0156). Liu teaches reporting sidelink capability to the eNB for path and SL-resource configuration (¶0018-0020). The claim requires an indication of whether the second device supports signalling over a sidelink interface, not a uniquely formatted relay-path specific configuration. Thus, in combination, the Panteleev’s relay sends the Liu’s SL capability report for the SL signalling it already uses to forward the HARQ.
Furthermore, there is nothing in claim structurally about the third indication that distinguish Applicant’s sidelink capability indicator vs. Liu’s SL indicator or any generic capability indicator for SL for that matters. Nor does the Specification as filed show any guidance. Applicant’s Specification merely uses a generic SL to specifically transport control information. That alone does not translate said generic SL, its configuration or capability indicator, any more special, unique, or distinct structurally from otherwise, as evidence by the Specification’s silence on the specificity of the alleged uniqueness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is amended and now requires the first indication as a configuration specific to control information relayed via the second wireless device and indicating a sidelink resource or control channel to used when the relay path is selected.
What the as-filed Specification describes is that the base station indicates which signalling option that remote UE is to use to send the HARQ (¶0077, 0163, 0217). These options include direct PUCCH/PUSCH and relayed PSCCH/PSSCH. The specification never mentions any language that indicate “specific to control information relayed via the relay path” or indicating “sidelink resource or control channel to be used when the relay path is selected”. POSITA reading the ¶0077, 0163, 0217 would understand an option-select indication, not a SL resource grant based on relay-path selection as now claimed. Dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 13-16, and 18 do not remedy this issue and fall together with the base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 now stated in part
sending a third indication to the base station and/or the first wireless device, the third indication indicating whether the second wireless device supports the signalling of control information relating to the relay path for the first wireless device to the base station via the second wireless device over a sidelink interface. (Emphasis added)
By leaving the phrase “over a sidelink interface” at the very end of the sentence, the grammatical construction of the claim is ambiguous as to which subjects the phrase “over a sidelink interface” is to modify: (i) the sending the third indication to the base station, (ii) the sending the third indication to the base station, or (iii) the signalling of the control information via the second wireless device.
Any of the reading is possible due to ambiguity, and each introduces unique implication. For example, the Specification does not support the relay UE to send the capability information to the base station over the SL interface, but rather on a Uu interface. (iii) is already covered by reference Panteleev wherein the signalling of the control information via the Relay path must have gone through SL interfaces along the hop.
Given this grammatical construction, POSITA would have not been clearly informed of which of the act (i), (ii), or (iii) that the phrase “over a sidelink interface” is intended for.
Claims 34-35 fail to remedy this issue and thus fall together with the base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 13-16, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Panteleev (US 2018/0206176).
As to claim 1:
Panteleev discloses:
A method performed by a first wireless device (For example Fig 7’s, 8a-d, target UE 106), wherein the first wireless device is communicating with a base station in a cellular communication network via a second wireless device (Fig. 1, 3, 7c, 8 c, ¶0036, 0046, 0150, communication between eNB 102 and UE 106 is via relay UE 104), the method comprising:
sending control information relating to a connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device to the base station using a relay path via the second wireless device.
(See at least ¶0152-0156, Figs 7c, 8c, 8d, sending to the eNB 102 the HARQ NACK/ACK for the second hop (UE 106 to UE 104), which is the control information related to that UE to UE connection. In the two-stage scenario, UE6 send that HARQ to relay 104, and 104 relays it to eNB 102 per 1056, that is sending control information using a relay path via a second communication device)
receiving a first indication from the base station, wherein the first indication provides a configuration for the first wireless device to use to send the control information to the base station,
(See at least Fig. 3, step 5, Fig. 4, ¶0058, 0070, 0110, After a relay path is in use/selected. eNB 102 transmits an indication of radio resources for UL/DL and/or sidelink resources to be used by remote UE 106 and the relay to communicate with the eNB, per 0070. ¶0110, a physical control channel configures resources and Tx/Rx parameters for the relay UE and the target UE. UE 106 receives that indication uses the indicated resources to send the second-hop HARQ into the path that the relay forwards. This satisfies the limitation of configuration for sending the claimed control information)
the configuration being specific to the control information relayed via the second wireless device, (“specific to” is loose claim construction that does not describes a specific structure/function to enable such specificity. Under BRI, it merely requires the received configuration is the one used for the relayed control information. In Fig. 7c/¶0156, the SL resource/control channel indicated for the relay path are the resources on which the UE 106 places the second-hop HARQ that the UE 104 forwards. ¶00156 also states this scenario requires new sidelink HARQ channel, thus “specific to”. See also ¶048, Fig. 2, relay scheduler configuring operations for the relay path, thus the HARQ receives its own scheduled resource usage, thus “specific to”.), and indicating a side link resource or control channel to be used when the relay path is selected. (Expressively stated in ¶058, 0070, the indicated radio resources may be on a sidelink interface between the remote UE 106 and one of the relay UEs in the case that a relay path is selected”. PSCCH/SCI on figs 5a, 6a and ¶0110 are on a dedicated side link)
As to claim 2:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the control information is sent to the base station via one or more of: an uplink control channel established directly with the base station; an uplink shared channel established directly with the base station; a control channel established with the second wireless device; and a shared channel established with the second wireless device. (at least ¶0156, Fig. 7c, via channel established with relay UE, ¶0160 via PUSCH)
As to claim 9:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the control information is hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, feedback relating to transmission of first data from the first wireless device to the second wireless device. (see at least ¶0159-1060, HARQ feedback (i.e. control information) related to data transmission from UEs 106 to 104 via SL channel, is sent by the UE 104)
As to claim 13:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the first data to the second wireless device; and receiving the HARQ feedback relating to the transmission of the first data from the second wireless device. (¶0161, Fig. 8c, transmission 804 by UE 106 to 104, receiving HARQ 810 from 104)
As to claim 14:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the first data to the second wireless device; and determining the HARQ feedback for the transmission of the first data. (Fig. 8c, transmitting data 804 to UE 104, receiving HARQ feedback 810. ¶0161, HARQ ACK/NACKs may be sent in response to transmissions by the remote UE 106. ¶0037, “UE may need to acknowledge its DL reception by sending ACK/NACK”)
As to claim 15:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 14, wherein the step of determining the HARQ feedback for the transmission of the first data is based on one or more of: a quality of a transmission channel between the first wireless device and the second wireless device when the first data is transmitted; whether a negative acknowledgement, NACK, is received from the second wireless device; whether the second wireless device grants transmission of new data or a retransmission of the first data; and whether HARQ feedback and/or a grant for transmission of new data or a retransmission of the first data is received from the second wireless device within a predetermined time period of the transmission of the first data. (See at least Fig. 8 a-c, transmitting data 804 to UE 104, receiving HARQ feedback 810. ¶0161, HARQ ACK/NACKs may be sent in response to transmissions by the remote UE 106. ¶0037, “UE may need to acknowledge its DL reception by sending ACK/NACK”)
As to claim 16:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein the HARQ feedback comprises an acknowledgement, ACK, indicating that the first data has been successfully received by the second wireless device, or a negative acknowledgement, NACK, indicating that the first data has not been successfully received by the second wireless device. (¶0161, HARQ ACK/NACKs may be sent in response to transmissions by the remote UE 106. ¶0037, “UE may need to acknowledge its DL reception by sending ACK/NACK”, naturally, ACK stands for acknowledgement, i.e. positive outcome; NACK stands for negative acknowledge, i.e. negative outcome)
As to claim 45:
Panteleev discloses a method performed by a base station ( For example Fig 7’s, 8a-d, base station) in a cellular communication network, the method comprising: receiving control information relating to a connection between a first wireless device and a second wireless device. (See at least ¶0152-0156, figs 7c, 8c, 8d, receiving at the eNB 102 the HARQ NACK/ACK for the second hop (UE 106 to UE 104), which is the control information related to that UE to UE connection. In the two-stage scenario, UE6 send that HARQ to relay 104, and 104 relays it to eNB 102 per 1056, that is sending control information using a relay path via a second communication device)
Sending a third indication to the first wireless device, wherein the third indication provides a configuration for the first wireless device to use to send the control information to the base station, (See at least Fig. 3, step 5, Fig. 4, ¶0058, 0070, 0110, After a relay path is in use/selected. eNB 102 transmits an indication of radio resources for UL/DL and/or sidelink resources to be used by remote UE 106 and the relay to communicate with the eNB, per 0070. ¶0110, a physical control channel configures resources and Tx/Rx parameters for the relay UE and the target UE. UE 106 receives that indication uses the indicated resources to send the second-hop HARQ into the path that the relay forwards. This satisfies the limitation of configuration for sending the claimed control information) and identifying whether to use a direct uplink path or a relay path via the second wireless device (Panteleeve’s eNB selects one of a direct path or a relay path (¶0057, 0069, 0120, and then transmits an indication of radio resources for such choice to the remote UE per ¶070. When a relay path is selected, the indicated resources are the corresponding side link resources; when a direct path is selected the resources are UL/DL resources (i.e. direct to base station). Therefore, the resource grant itself identifies to the remote UE whether it is UL/DL resources to base station or it is SL resources to a relay, thus implicitly indicative of whether to use a particular path. Namely a Uu grant vs. a SL grant to the UE’s perspective, allowing the UE to know if a grant is for direct link with the base station or for SL to a different UE)
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panteleev (US 2018/0206176) in view of Lee (US 20210320759)
As to claim 18:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 9, however is silent on when the first wireless device has transmitted the first data a predetermined number of times, the HARQ feedback sent to the base station indicates a maximum number of retransmissions of the first data has been performed.
However, this is routine practice per packet/data tracking and integrity management. Indeed, Lee in a related field of endeavor discloses system/method for SL communication in cellular context, wherein when a SL data has been transmitted a predetermined of time, a report is sent to the base station so as the base station determines a max number of transmission has been reached per ¶0188.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that, in the system of Panteleev, when a SL data has been transmitted a predetermined of time, a report is sent to the base station. Given that Panteleeve throughout 0140-0155 expresses concern to provide acknowledges to nodes in the network, this implementation advantageously provide network transparency and informative approach to data loss management (i.e. “base station may determine that the retransmission operation has been completed as many times as the maximum number of retransmissions based on the ACK”, ¶0188, Lee)
Claim(s) 8, 21, 33, 34, 38, 51, 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panteleev (US 2018/0206176) in view of Liu (US 2018/0092067).
As to claim 8:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on sending a second indication to the base station and/or the second wireless device, the second indication indicating whether the first wireless device supports the signaling of control information to the base station via the second wireless device.
Liu, however in a related field of D2D communication using SL, discloses that D2D participants (UEs 202) to report side link capabilities to eNB which are used to perform D2D and configuration forming paths that can be transmitted various information, see ¶0018-0020.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Panteleev incorporate D2D participants (UEs) to report side link capabilities to eNB. This is standard practice across cellular standards, as each nodes to be aware of capabilities of others in order to configure communications for various benefits: assurance of compatibility, alternate method of communications in case of congestion/malfunction, system transparency etc.
As to claim 21:
Panteleev discloses:
A method performed by a second wireless device (target relay UE 104), wherein a first wireless device is communicating with a base station in a cellular communication network via the second wireless (Fig. 1, 3, 7c, 8 c, ¶0036, 0046, 0150, communication between eNB 102 and UE 106 is via relay UE 104), the method comprising:
receiving control information relating to a connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device from the first wireless device; and sending the received control information to the base station. (See at least ¶0152-0156, figs 7c, 8c, 8d, the HARQ NACK/ACK for the second hop (UE 106 to relay UE 104, i.e. the “second wireless device), which is the control information related to that UE to UE connection. In the two-stage scenario, UE106 send that HARQ to relay 104, and 104 relays it to eNB 102 per 1056, that is sending control information using a relay path via a second communication device)
Panteleev already discloses sending control data over a relay link to the base station, however, is silent on: sending a third indication to the base station and/or the first wireless device, the third indication indicating whether the second wireless device supports the signaling of control information for the first wireless device to the base station via the second wireless device via a sidelink interface.
Liu, however in a related field of D2D communication using SL, discloses that D2D participants (UEs 202) report side link capabilities to eNB (¶0018-0020, Fig. 2A-C). These reports are used to perform D2D configuration, resource pool allocation, and path formation according to supported air interfaces/protocol. The UEs transmit this information over sidelink channels to the network for proper configuration. Specifically, Fig. 2B shows at least one remote UE uses a relay UE to communicate with the base station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to have Panteleev’s relay UE 104 (which already receives the remote-UE control information/HARQ and forwards it to the eNB over the relay path per ¶00156, SL interface 110, ¶0036) to send Liu’s sidelink capability report as the third indication, indicating whether the relay supports signalling of that control information relating to the relay path over a sidelink interface. Panteleeve’s relay path already requires the relay UE to use SL interfaces to transport the control information. Liu teaches the capability reports so the eNB can form the path and allocate the SL resources only for the supported SL interface. This advantageously allow the eNB to avoid incompatible/mismatched interface situation that would potentially disrupt the relay formation.
As to claim 34:
Panteleev in view of Liu discloses all limitations of claim 21, wherein the method further comprises, prior to receiving the HARQ feedback from the first wireless device: receiving the first data from the first wireless device; and sending HARQ feedback relating to the receipt of the first data to the first wireless device. (Panteleev , ¶0161, Fig. 8c, transmission 804 by UE 106 to 104, receiving HARQ 810 from 104)
As to claim 35:
Panteleev in view of Liu discloses all limitations of claim 34, wherein the method further comprises: sending the HARQ feedback relating to the receipt of the first data from the first wireless device to the base station separately from sending the received HARQ feedback to the base station. (Panteleev ¶0160-1062, Fig. 8b, Relay send its own HARQ to eNB over Uu)
As to claim 38:
Panteleev discloses a method performed by a second wireless device ( For example Fig 7’s, 8a-d, target relay UE), wherein a first wireless device is communicating with a base station in a cellular communication network via the second wireless device (Fig. 8 c, ¶0150, communication between eNB 102 and UE 106 is via relay UE 104), the method comprising: d
determining hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, feedback relating to transmission of first data from the first wireless device to the second wireless device; and sending the determined HARQ feedback to the base station. (¶0160-1062, Fig. 8a-b, Relay send its own HARQ to eNB over Uu)
Panteleev however is silent on sending a third indication to the base station and/or the first wireless device, the third indication indicating whether the second wireless device supports the signaling of HARQ feedback for data transmissions from the first wireless device to the base station via a sidelink control channel or sidelink shared channel.
Liu, however in a related field of D2D communication using SL, discloses that D2D participants (UEs 202) report side link capabilities to eNB which are used to perform D2D and configuration forming paths that can be transmitted various information, see ¶0018-0020, Fig 2A-C. The reports are used for D2D configuration, SL resource-pool allocation, and path formation according to the supported air interface/protocol. Fig. 2B shows the remote UE communicating with the base station via a relay link with a relay UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to incorporate Liu’s teaching such that the relay UE 104 of Panteleeve – which already determines HARQ from remote UE 106 and sends that that HARQ over the relay path per ¶0160, 0162, Fig. 8a-b, using a SL control channel and a sidelink shared or HARQ channel (¶0110, 0156) – sends Liu’s sidelink capability report (¶0018-0020) to the eNB and/or the remote UE as the third indication. Such report would advantageously allow the eNB to learn of capability before forming the path thus avoid incompatible/mismatched interface situation that would potentially disrupt the relay formation.
As to claim 51:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 45, but silent on receiving the first indication relating to the first wireless device, wherein the first indication indicates whether the first wireless device supports the signaling of control information to the base station via the second wireless device.
Liu, however in a related field of D2D communication using SL, discloses that D2D participants (UEs 202) to report side link capabilities to eNB which are used to perform D2D and configuration forming paths that can be transmitted various information, see ¶0018-0020.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Panteleev incorporate D2D participants (UEs) to report side link capabilities to eNB. This is standard practice across cellular standards, as each nodes to be aware of capabilities of others in order to configure communications for various benefits: assurance of compatibility, alternate method of communications in case of congestion/malfunction, system transparency etc.
As to claim 52:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 45, but is silent on receiving a second indication relating to the second wireless device, wherein the second indication indicates whether the second wireless device supports the signaling of control information for the first wireless device to the base station.
Liu, however in a related field of D2D communication using SL, discloses that D2D participants (UEs 202) to report side link capabilities to eNB which are used to perform D2D and configuration forming paths that can be transmitted various information, see ¶0018-0020.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Panteleev incorporate D2D participants (UEs) to report side link capabilities to eNB. This is standard practice across cellular standards, as each nodes to be aware of capabilities of others in order to configure communications for various benefits: assurance of compatibility, alternate method of communications in case of congestion/malfunction, system transparency etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2019/196829 - UE-1 and UE-2 move to the network coverage, access the network, and report the sidelink capability. UE-1 supports the transmission of measurement reference signals and feedback capabilities, and UE-2 only supports feedback capabilities. The network side enables and configures the feedback configuration of UE-1 and UE-2 through RRC signaling, and enables and configures the sidelink measurement reference signal configuration of UE-1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights