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 .
RCE of 01/23/2026 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 12/29/2025 – Remarks are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Panteleev (reference of record) does not disclose “distinct, relay-specific configuration for relayed control information is not persuasive when the reference is read as a whole by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
Applicant’s position alleges Panteleev (0070) is merely a generic indication of UL/DL/SL resources for general communication, and thus is not a configuration specific to relay-path control information (e.g. sidelink HARG feedback related to remote-relay connection) as required in the amended claim which supposedly require the base station configuration indication to distinguish relay-path control from other UL traffic.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The configuration in Panteleev are expressively tailored to the relay path and to control the signaling, (including the HARG feedback) sent via the relay UE. They are not just generic any ULtraffic grants. Specifically:
¶0070 discloses explicit Relay-Path specificity, i.e. “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”.
This indication from eNB 102 is sent to the remote UE (first device). It is expressively conditioned for relay path selection (i.e. “in case that a relay path is selected”). POSITA would understand this is as a relay-specific configuration (sidelink resource and configuration via a second device). Applicant’s argument has selectively narrowed to UL/DL but left out the sidelink option specifically named in ¶0070. Moreover, Panteleev expands the disclosures, for example in Fig. 2, ¶0048, in which the eNB has a dedicated relay scheduler module that configures operation specifically for the relay paths via sidelink, which involves dedicated resource grants, power control, and signal control for multi-hop nature of relay traffic. This directly rebuts Applicant’s assertion of generic resource grants by Panteleev’s base station.
Furthermore, control info/HARQ feedback configs of Panteleev are relay-specific. Per Fig. 7a-d, Fig. 8a-d, and ¶0150-0165, details multiple options for relay control information between remote UE (first UE), relay UE, and eNB, and the eNB specifically indicates and configures which option path the exchange should be implemented. Examples being new sidelink HARQ channels, forwarding rules, etc.. All specific to relayed scenarios. These are not the same as generic UL data grants, and they address the exact problems of control information for relay connection/sidelinks.
Therefore, the arguments for claim 1 are not persuasive. References must be read as a whole, not isolated paragraphs to be read in vacuum. The examiner’s citations are proper in context of the above discussion. Furthermore, the language “specific to”, ironically, is not specific. It is reasonably satisfied by the configurations that are tied to and enable the relayed control scenario which Panteleeve did so repeatedly in the discussion above. In conclusion, Panteleev discloses exactly the type of the base station configuration the Applicant now claims. The arguments relies on an artificially narrow reading that does not account for the entirety of the reference’s disclosure.
With regards to arguments for claim 21:
Applicant argues Liu lack of relay-specific capability signaling from relay UE indicating support forwarding remote UE’s control information, and attempts to distinguish remote UE control signaling from generic D2D traffic, or explicit relay HARQ support indication in light of amendments.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Liu explicitly discloses sidelink communications with remote UE 202 employing a relay UE 206 to communicate with base station 204, which is exactly at least one of the options covered by reference Panteleeve as discussed above. This alone dispels the notion that Liu only discloses generic D2D communication.
Liu expressively teaches the participants to report sidelink type/capabilities to the eNB for resource allocation and link configuration per ¶0018-0020. Thus in context of Fig. 2B, these reports include the sidelink capabilities specifically allow the relay path configuration showed in Fig. 2B possible. As such, when combined with Panteleev, which teaches a relay UE receiving and forwarding remote UE’s HARQ feedback/control information relating to the relay path (Fig. 7c, 8c-d, ¶0152-0156), POSITA would have found it obvious to have the relay UE 206 of Liu/104 of Panteleev to send a third indication indicating whether it supports such a sidelink configuration, given that both references are in the same field of sidelink, and both disclose remote UE using a relay UE to communicate with a base station. Capability reports are standard practice in wireless communication to promote compatibility and avoid malfunction.
Furthermore, the amendment does not add significant patentable weight to the claim. The language “relating to the relay path” is overly broad, i.e. having a relation does not provide a clear scope of distinction in terms of functions as well as structures. This language is satisfied by the fact that Liu does in fact discloses a sidelink configuration shown in Fig. 2B.
Applicant’s argument to limit Liu to direct P2P only is not persuasive. Sidelink/D2D techniques taught in Liu are routinely applied to relay scenarios in the art, as well as explicitly in Liu’s scenario in Fig. 2B, as Penteleev itself is built on D2D/sidelink for control info relaying. No impermissible hindsight is required because the modification is a predictable application of known capability reporting to a known relay forwarding problem.
In view of the above discussions, the arguments are not persuasive.
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. 8 c, ¶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. (at least ¶0152-0155, HARQ feedback (i.e. control information) related to data transmission in second hop, i.e. between UEs 104 and 106, is sent by the UE 106. See also Fig. 8c and 8d. See ¶0156, control information may be sent in two stages, 1) to the relay UE, and 2) forwarded by the relay UE to the eNB, thus satisfying the language “using a relay path via the second wireless 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, the configuration being specific to the control information relayed via the second wireless device.
(¶0070, The eNB 102 transmits an indication of radio resources for UL/DL and/or sidelink radio resources to be used by the Remote UE 106 and/or Relay UEs to communicate with the eNB 102, The indicated radio resources maybe on a sidelink interface between the remote UE 106, and one of the relay UEs in scenario that a relay path is selected. See also ¶0048, and Fig. 2, which disclose a relay scheduler module which configure operations specifically for relay paths. See also ¶150-0165, Fig. 7’s and 8’s, which detail multiple options for forwarding information via SL )
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. (at least ¶0152-0155, HARQ feedback (i.e. control information) related to data transmission in second hop, i.e. between UEs 104 and 106, is sent by the UE 106. See also Fig. 8c and 8d. See ¶0156, control information may be sent in two stages, 1) to the relay UE, and 2) forwarded by the relay UE to the eNB, thus satisfying the language “using a relay path via the second wireless 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. (¶0070, The eNB 102 transmits an indication of radio resources for UL/DL and/or sidelink radio resources to be used by the Remote UE 106 and/or Relay UEs to communicate with the eNB 102, The indicated radio resources maybe on a sidelink interface between the remote UE 106, and one of the relay UEs in scenario that a relay path is selected. See also ¶0048, and Fig. 2, which disclose a relay scheduler module which configure operations specifically for relay paths. See also ¶150-0165, Fig. 7’s and 8’s, which detail multiple options for forwarding information via SL )
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 to 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 ( 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: 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. (at least ¶0152-0155, HARQ feedback (i.e. control information) related to data transmission in second hop, i.e. between UEs 104 and 106, is sent by the UE 106. See also Fig. 8c and 8d. See ¶0156, control information may be sent in two stages, 1) to the relay UE, and 2) forwarded by the relay UE to the eNB, thus satisfying the language “using a relay path via the second wireless device))
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 control information for the first wireless device 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 (¶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 that the system of Panteleev to modify Panteleev’s relay UE – which already forwards remote UE control information/HARQ in a sidelink relay path – to incorporate Liu’s sidelink capability reporting. The relay UE thus would send a third indication (capability report) to the base station/remote UE to indicate whether it supports such sidelink signaling of the control information related to the relay path.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 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: 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.
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 to 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 51:
Panteleev discloses all limitations of claim 45, but silent on receiving a 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 to 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 to 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.
US 2020/0052524- The described technology is generally directed towards a multi-connectivity (three or more simultaneous communication links) framework in a wireless communication network, including aspects and components that support the operation of New Radio vehicle-to-everything (V2X) services. Aspects of the framework include initial access and V2X establishment, local manager selection, sidelink and cellular resource configuration, mobility and measurements (and reporting), group communication and vehicular platooning support, and V2X configuration and local manager association..
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