Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-30 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pateromichelakis et al. (US 2023/0239724 A1;hereinafter "Pateromichelakis"), in view of Karampatsis et al. (US 2016/0100305 A1; hereinafter "Karampatsis”), and further in view of Teyeb et al. (US 2024/0080697 A1; hereinafter “Teyeb”).
Regarding claim 1, Pateromichelakis teaches a first user equipment (UE) (FIG. 3A UAV 201) for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory (FIG. 6 memory 610 from FIG. 3A UAV 201); and one or more processors (FIG. 6 processor 605 from FIG. 3A UAV 201), coupled to the memory, configured to:
receive: an authorization indication for authorized command and control (C2) communications for a direct link between the first UE (FIG. 3A UAV 201) and a second UE (FIG. 3A UAV-C 203) (FIG. 3A 3a and 3b show PC5 direct communication between UAV 201 and UAV-C 203; [0172] discloses that a UAE server sends a C2 session setup request including ProSe codes for direct C2 operation to UE clients, thereby providing an authorization indication, [0189] discloses establishing a communication session in response to the received request, wherein the C2 communication operates in a direct mode);
an indication of a proximity-based (ProSe) identifier associated with the authorized C2 communications for a direct link between the first UE and a second UE ([0172] discloses that a C2 session setup request message includes ProSe codes for direct C2 operation, [0189] discloses establishing a communication session in response to the received request); and
establish a direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier ([0189] establishing a communication session in response to the received request, wherein the C2 communication operates in a direct mode).
However, Pateromichelakis does not teach receive an indication of a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier; and establish a direct link with the second UE based the destination layer-2 identifier.
In an analogous art, Karampatsis teaches receive an indication of a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier ([0138] an announcing WTRU transmits a Model B discovery message over a MAC PDU with a source ID set to its ProSe WTRU ID and a predefined destination ID, [0139] a monitoring WTRU responds by setting the destination ID field of the MAC frame to the source ID of the announcing WTRU, thereby indicating a peer-specific destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe context).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
However, the combination of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis does not teach establish a direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier.
In an analogous art, Teyeb teaches establish a direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier ([0106] a sidelink relay is implemented as a layer 2 relay, where RLC and MAC layers are terminated per link, including the PC5 interface between a remote WTRU and a relay WTRU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Karampatsis teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 1B processor 118) are further configured to:
receive an indication of a time duration for a validity timer associated with the ProSe identifier ([0075] a ProSe Application Code allocated per WTRU has an associated validity timer that runs in the ProSe Function and in the WTRU. [0175],[0185]-[0186] the ProSe Function sends to a WTRU a Discovery Response or Announce Authorization message including the ProSe Code and/or a validity timer),
wherein establishing the direct link (FIG. 2 PC5) with the second UE (FIG. 2 WTRU 202) (FIG. 17 WTRU 1703) comprises establishing the direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier within the time duration for the validity timer associated with the ProSe identifier ([0138]-[0139] Model B ProSe discovery uses MAC PDUs and sets the MAC destination ID to the peer WTRU ID to perform direct UE-to-UE communication, [0177], [0185]-[0186] the ProSe Function sends a Discovery Response or Announce Authorization message including the ProSe Code and a validity timer, after which the announcing WTRU allocates radio resources (FIG. 17 step 1728) and expired ProSe codes are revoked; [0151]-[0152]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Karampatsis teaches wherein the ProSe identifier is associated with C2 communications via the direct link between first UE and the second UE (FIG. 2 shows a PC5 sidelink between WTRU 201 and 202 for ProSe direct communications) that are authorized based at least in part on an authorization request from an application server ([0113] the ProSe Function sends a discovery authorization message to the ProSe Application Server to determine whether the monitoring WTRU may be discovered, [0185]-[0186] the ProSe Function sends an announce authorization message including the ProSe code and/or validity timer to the announcing WTRU after interaction with the ProSe Application Server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 1B processor 118 from FIG. 2 Remote WTRU 1) are further configured to:
receive an indication of a ProSe policy associated with the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier ([0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS, [0105] The receiving WTRU receives PC5-RRC signaling includes a sidelink configuration message comprising a destination layer-2 ID, [0191] the remote WTRU receives an indication and change parameters that determine whether and how sidelink or direct link measurements are reported),
wherein the ProSe identifier is a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) service identifier ([0089] NR sidelink (PC5) is used to support a vehicle to V2X services through ProSe-based communication, [0102] A unicast link is initiated by upper layers (e.g., as in a ProSe one-to-one connection), An access stratum (AS) layer (e.g., in NR V2X) may support the notion of a unicast link, [0118] In FIG. 9 step 910, a remote WTRU reports one or multiple candidate relay WTRU(s), which reporting including the relay WTRU's ID and SL RSRP information on PC5) and the ProSe policy is a V2X policy ([0119] PC5-RRC procedures in NR V2X are used to establish secure unicast links, which rely on ProSe signaling and configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 1B processor 118 from FIG. 2 Remote WTRU 1), to receive the indication of the ProSe identifier and the indication of the destination layer-2 identifier ([0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS, [0105] The receiving WTRU receives PC5-RRC signaling includes a sidelink configuration message comprising a destination layer-2 ID, [0191] the remote WTRU receives an indication and change parameters that determine whether and how sidelink or direct link measurements are reported), are configured to:
receive the indication of the ProSe identifier and the indication of the destination layer-2 identifier from an application server ([0030] In FIG. 1D, the CN 115 provides access to the Internet and other networks 112 which may include application server, [0078] the CN 115 may communicate with an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) server and provide the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c with access to the other networks 112, [0103] A PC5-RRC connection may be a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 1B processor 118 from FIG. 2 Remote WTRU 1), to receive the indication of the ProSe identifier and the indication of the destination layer-2 identifier ([0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS, [0105] The receiving WTRU receives PC5-RRC signaling includes a sidelink configuration message comprising a destination layer-2 ID, [0191] the remote WTRU receives an indication and change parameters that determine whether and how sidelink or direct link measurements are reported), are configured to:
receive the indication of the ProSe identifier and the indication of the destination layer-2 identifier from a network entity ([0074] In FIG. 1D, the CN 115 includes a Data Network (DN) 185a, 185b, which is operated by an entity other than the CN operator, [0078] the WTRUs are connected to a local Data Network (DN) 185a, 185b through the UPF via the N3 and N6 interfaces, [0103] A PC5-RRC connection may be a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the first UE is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (FIG. 2 UAV 201) and the second UE (FIG. 2 UAV-C 203) is an unmanned aerial vehicle controller (UAV-C) ([0005] the first UAS comprising a first unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) and an UAV controller (“UAV-C”)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 6 processor 605 from FIG. 3A UAV 201) are further configured to: receive, from the second UE (FIG. 3A UAV-C 203), one or more C2 communications via the direct link with the second UE ([0006] receiving a direct mode of C2 communication in the UAS between UAV 201 and UAV-C 203; [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 6 processor 605 from FIG. 3A UAV 201) are further configured to:
establish a direct link with a third UE ([0036] the UAV controller and UAV establish a direct C2 link, [0172] In FIG. 3A step 2a, the UAE server sends a C2 session setup message to one or more (multiple) UAE clients, including identification and configuration of UAV-C and UAVs in proximity), wherein the third UE is another UAV-C ([0050] one or more UAV-C in dynamic C2 mode).
However, Pateromichelakis does not teach release the direct link with the second UE; and establish a direct link with a third UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier.
In an analogous art, the combination of Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 1B processor 118 from FIG. 2 Remote WTRU 1) are further configured to:
release the direct link with the second UE ([0116] In FIG. 8 step 870, a PC5 link is released between the remote WTRU and the relay WTRU); and
establish a direct link with a third UE ([0180] the link between the relay WTRU and the next hop WTRU, which is a WTRU in a multi-hop WTRU to WTRU, thereby disclosing that the relay WTRU establishes a direct link with a third UE) based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier (FIG. 2 and 3 disclose that the relay WTRU forwards data based on a destination layer-2 identifier associated with a ProSe identifier, [0106] a sidelink relay is implemented as a layer 2 relay including the PC5 interface between a remote WTRU and a relay WTRU ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the first UE is an unmanned aerial vehicle controller (UAV-C) (FIG. 3A UAV-C 203) and the second UE is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (FIG. 3A UAV 201) ([0005] the first UAS comprising first UAV controller (“UAV-C”) and an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”), [0132] In FIG. 3A Step 3a, PC5 announcements/control messages are exchanged between the UAV-C 203 and the UAV 201, because ProSe is already in use (see block 327)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 6 processor 605 from FIG. 3A UAV-C 203) are further configured to: transmit, to the second UE (FIG. 3A UAV 201), one or more C2 communications via the direct link with the second UE ([0006] transmitting a direct mode of C2 communication in the UAS between UAV 201 and UAV-C 203; [0091]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 1B processor 118 from FIG. 2 Remote WTRU 1), to establish the direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier, are configured to:
establish a PC5 direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier (FIG. 2 and 3 disclose that the relay WTRU forwards data based on a destination layer-2 identifier associated with a ProSe identifier, [0094] The ProSe WTRU-to-Network Relay receives an establishment request (e.g., layer-2 (L2) link establishment request) from the remote WTRU, [0106] a sidelink relay is implemented as a layer 2 relay including the PC5 interface between a remote WTRU and a relay WTRU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 13, Pateromichelakis teaches a network entity (FIG. 5 UAE server 500) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory (FIG. 5 Memory 510) and one or more processors (FIG. 5 Processor 505), coupled to the memory ([0185]), configured to:
receive, from an application server (FIG. 4 UAE server 221), an authorization request for command and control (C2) communications via a direct link between a pair of user equipments (UEs) ([0132] PC5 announcements/control messages are exchanged between the UAV-C 203 and the UAV 201, [0172] In FIG. 4A step 2a, the UAE server 221 sends to UAV 201 and/or UAV-C 203, a C2 UAE session setup request message (message 409) including UAV/UAV-C identification with ProSe codes for direct C2 operation between UAV and UAV-C),
However, Pateromichelakis does not teach wherein the authorization request indicates a proximity- based services (ProSe) identifier associated with the C2 communications; and transmit, to the application server, an authorization indication for the C2 communications via the direct link between the pair of UEs, wherein the authorization indication indicates a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier.
In an analogous art, Karampatsis teaches wherein the authorization request indicates a proximity- based services (ProSe) identifier associated with the C2 communications (FIG. 2 shows that the ProSe Function 207 receives ProSe-related authorization information form the ProSe Application Server 205 via PC2 for ProSe direct communication between WTRU 201 and 202 over PC5; [0113] the Match report includes the ProSe Application Code and/or the ProSe WTRU ID that are used in the discovery authorization procedure with the ProSe Application Server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
However, the combination of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis does not teach transmit, to the application server, an authorization indication for the C2 communications via the direct link between the pair of UEs, wherein the authorization indication indicates a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier.
In an analogous art, Teyeb teaches transmit, to the application server (FIG. 1D other networks 112), an authorization indication for the C2 communications via the direct link between the pair of UEs ([0040] The CN 106/115 provide the WTRUs with access to the other network 112 including other wireless networks that are operated by other service provider, [0121] At 1020, the remote WTRU sends the first RRC message (e.g., RRCSetupRequest) for connection establishment with a gNB via the relay WTRU (e.g., using a default L2 configuration on PC5),
wherein the authorization indication indicates a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier ([0091] An architecture of an end-to-end packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) and hop-by-hop RLC supports a WTRU-to-network relay (e.g., a layer-2 WTRU-to-network relay), [0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the pair of UEs ([0049] UEs/aerial UEs) includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and an unmanned aerial vehicle controller (UAV-C) ([0050] In FIG. 1B direct C2 mode 161, UAV-C/UAV pairs).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the authorization request indicates a UAV identifier associated with the UAV and a UAV-C identifier associated with the UAV-C ([0172] a C2 UAE session setup request message (message 409) including UAV/UAV-C identification with ProSe codes for direct C2 operation with the UAV-C).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Karampatsis teaches wherein the authorization request indicates a time duration for a validity timer associated with the ProSe identifier ([0075] a ProSe Application Code allocated per WTRU has an associated validity timer that runs in the ProSe Function and in the WTRU, [0185] the ProSe Function exchanges announce authorization messages including the ProSe Code and/or a validity timer with the ProSe Application Server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
Regarding claim 17, Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 5 Processor 505) are further configured to:
transmit, to a core network device (FIG. 1A mobile core network 120), a request for policy control function (PCF) authorization of the C2 communications via the direct link between the pair of UEs ([0199] The transceiver 525 communicate with the mobile core network 120 including a Policy Control Function (PCF; [0067]) under the control of the processor 505 to transmit messages and other signals including authorization; [0097]), ([0078] In FIG. 1B, the UAV controller 104 uses a direct connection by using the PC5 reference point with the UAV(s) 103 to establish a C2 communication session).
However, Pateromichelakis does not teach wherein the authorization indication indicates a ProSe policy for the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the core network device, an indication of the destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier and an indication of the ProSe policy for the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier.
In an analogous art, the combination of Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein the authorization indication indicates a ProSe policy for the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier (FIG. 2 and 3 disclose that the relay WTRU forwards the message based on a destination layer-2 identifier associated with a ProSe identifier, [0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection with a destination layer-2 ID, [0105] The receiving WTRU receives PC5-RRC signaling includes a sidelink configuration message comprising a destination layer-2 ID with received indication and parameters; [0191]), and wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 1B processor 118) are further configured to:
receive, from the core network device (FIG. 2 and 3 CN), an indication of the destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier and an indication of the ProSe policy for the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier (FIG. 2 and 3 disclose that the configuration is sent from the core network (CN) and reach the WTRU through the PC5 stack, [0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection with a destination layer-2 ID, [0105] The receiving WTRU receives PC5-RRC signaling includes a sidelink configuration message comprising a destination layer-2 ID with received indication and parameters; [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein the destination layer-2 identifier is a default destination layer-2 identifier for establishing a direct link for C2 communications ([0121] the remote WTRU send the first RRC message (e.g., RRCSetupRequest) for connection establishment with a gNB via the relay WTRU (e.g., using a default L2 configuration on PC5), The RRCSetup delivery to the remote WTRU uses the default configuration on PC5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the authorization request is a request for authorization for C2 communications via a PC5 direct link between the pair of UEs ([0075] In FIG. 3A, the UTM 131 sends a request to a UAE server 133 to manage the operation mode of a C2 communication session for a UAS 101, [0078] In the direct C2 mode 161, the UAV controller (UAV-C) 104 uses a direct connection with the UAV(s) 103 to establish a C2 communication session. The direct connection uses the PC5 reference point, [0172] a C2 UAE session setup request message (message 409) including with ProSe codes for direct C2 operation between UAV and UAV-C).
Regarding claim 20, Pateromichelakis teaches a method of wireless communication performed ([0004]) by a first user equipment (UE) (FIG. 2 UAV 201), comprising:
receiving: an authorization indication for authorized command and control (C2) communications for a direct link between the first UE (FIG. 3A UAV 201) and a second UE (FIG. 3A UAV-C 203) (FIG. 3A 3a and 3b show PC5 direct communication between UAV 201 and UAV-C 203; [0172] discloses that a UAE server sends a C2 session setup request including ProSe codes for direct C2 operation to UE clients, thereby providing an authorization indication, [0189] discloses establishing a communication session in response to the received request, wherein the C2 communication operates in a direct mode);
an indication of a proximity-based services (ProSe) identifier associated with the authorized C2 communications for a direct link between the first UE and a second UE ([0172] discloses that a C2 session setup request message includes ProSe codes for direct C2 operation, [0189] discloses establishing a communication session in response to the received request); and
establishing a direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier ([0189] establishing a communication session in response to the received request, wherein the C2 communication operates in a direct mode).
However, Pateromichelakis does not teach receiving: an indication of a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier; and establish a direct link with the second UE based the destination layer-2 identifier.
In an analogous art, Karampatsis teaches receiving: an indication of a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier ([0138] an announcing WTRU transmits a Model B discovery message over a MAC PDU with a source ID set to its ProSe WTRU ID and a predefined destination ID, [0139] a monitoring WTRU responds by setting the destination ID field of the MAC frame to the source ID of the announcing WTRU, thereby indicating a peer-specific destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe context).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
However, the combination of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis does not teach establishing a direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier.
In an analogous art, Teyeb teaches establishing a direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier ([0106] a sidelink relay is implemented as a layer 2 relay, where RLC and MAC layers are terminated per link, including the PC5 interface between a remote WTRU and a relay WTRU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Karampatsis teaches receive an indication of a time duration for a validity timer associated with the ProSe identifier ([0075] a ProSe Application Code allocated per WTRU has an associated validity timer that runs in the ProSe Function and in the WTRU, [0175],[0185]-[0186] the ProSe Function sends to a WTRU a Discovery Response or Announce Authorization message including the ProSe Code and/or a validity timer),
wherein establishing the direct link (FIG. 2 PC5) with the second (FIG. 2 WTRU 202) (FIG. 17 WTRU 1703) comprises establishing the direct link with the second UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier within the time duration ([0138]-[0139] Model B ProSe discovery uses MAC PDUs and sets the MAC destination ID to the peer WTRU ID to perform direct UE-to-UE communication, [0177], [0185]-[0186] the ProSe Function sends a Discovery Response or Announce Authorization message including the ProSe Code and a validity timer, after which the announcing WTRU allocates radio resources (FIG. 17 step 1728) and expired ProSe codes are revoked; [0151]-[0152]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Karampatsis teaches wherein the ProSe identifier is associated with C2 communications via the direct link between first UE and the second UE (FIG. 2 shows a PC5 sidelink between WTRU 201 and 202 for ProSe direct communications) that are authorized based at least in part on an authorization request from an application server ([0113] the ProSe Function sends a discovery authorization message to the ProSe Application Server to determine whether the monitoring WTRU may be discovered, [0185]-[0186] the ProSe Function sends an announce authorization message including the ProSe code and/or validity timer to the announcing WTRU after interaction with the ProSe Application Server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein receiving the indication of the ProSe identifier and the indication of the destination layer-2 identifier ([0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS, [0105] The receiving WTRU receives PC5-RRC signaling includes a sidelink configuration message comprising a destination layer-2 ID, [0191] the remote WTRU receives an indication and change parameters that determine whether and how sidelink or direct link measurements are reported) comprises:
receiving the indication of the ProSe identifier and the indication of the destination layer-2 identifier from an application server ([0030] In FIG. 1D, the CN 115 provides access to the Internet and other networks 112 which may include application server, [0078] the CN 115 may communicate with an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) server and provide the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c with access to the other networks 112, [0103] A PC5-RRC connection may be a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches wherein receiving the indication of the ProSe identifier and the indication of the destination layer-2 identifier ([0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS, [0105] The receiving WTRU receives PC5-RRC signaling includes a sidelink configuration message comprising a destination layer-2 ID, [0191] the remote WTRU receives an indication and change parameters that determine whether and how sidelink or direct link measurements are reported) comprises:
receiving the indication of the ProSe identifier and the indication of the destination layer-2 identifier from a network entity ([0074] In FIG. 1D, the CN 115 includes a Data Network (DN) 185a, 185b, which is operated by an entity other than the CN operator, [0078] the WTRUs are connected to a local Data Network (DN) 185a, 185b through the UPF via the N3 and N6 interfaces, [0103] A PC5-RRC connection may be a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the first UE is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (FIG. 2 UAV 201) and the second UE is an unmanned aerial vehicle controller (UAV-C) (FIG. 2 UAV-C 203) ([0005] the first UAS comprising a first unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) and an UAV controller (“UAV-C”)), and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the second UE, one or more C2 communications via the direct link with the second UE ([0006] receiving a direct mode of C2 communication in the UAS between UAV 201 and UAV-C 203; [0091]).
Regarding claim 26, Pateromichelakis teaches establish a direct link with a third UE ([0036] the UAV controller and UAV establish a direct C2 link, [0172] In FIG. 3A step 2a, the UAE server sends a C2 session setup message to one or more (multiple) UAE clients, including identification and configuration of UAV-C and UAVs in proximity), wherein the third UE is another UAV-C ([0050] one or more UAV-C in dynamic C2 mode).
However, Pateromichelakis does not teach releasing the direct link with the second UE; and establish a direct link with a third UE based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier.
In an analogous art, the combination of Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Teyeb teaches releasing the direct link with the second UE ([0116] In FIG. 8 step 870, a PC5 link is released between the remote WTRU and the relay WTRU); and
establish a direct link with a third UE ([0180] the link between the relay WTRU and the next hop WTRU, which is a WTRU in a multi-hop WTRU to WTRU, thereby disclosing that the relay WTRU establishes a direct link with a third UE) based at least in part on the ProSe identifier and the destination layer-2 identifier (FIG. 2 and 3 disclose that the relay WTRU forwards data based on a destination layer-2 identifier associated with a ProSe identifier, [0106] a sidelink relay is implemented as a layer 2 relay including the PC5 interface between a remote WTRU and a relay WTRU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the first UE is an unmanned aerial vehicle controller (UAV-C) (FIG. 2 UAV-C 203) and the second UE is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (FIG. 2 UAV 201) ([0005] the first UAS comprising a first UAV controller (“UAV-C”) and an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”), [0132] In FIG. 3A Step 3a, PC5 announcements/control messages are exchanged between the UAV-C 203 and the UAV 201, because ProSe is already in use (see block 327)), and wherein the method further comprises: transmitting, to the second UE, one or more C2 communications via the direct link with the second UE ([0006] transmitting a direct mode of C2 communication in the UAS between UAV 201 and UAV-C 203; [0091]).
Regarding claim 28, Pateromichelakis teaches a method of wireless communication performed ([0004]) by a network entity (FIG. 5 UAE server 500), comprising:
receiving, from an application server (FIG. 2 UTM 131), an authorization request for command and control (C2) communications via a direct link between a pair of user equipments (UEs) ([0075] a UAE server 133 receives a request from the UTM 131 to manage the operation mode of a C2 communication session between UAV 201 and UAV-C 203, [0097] Application-specific requirement, which in this case can be a requirement from the application specific server to give the capability to UAE server which has the authorization to manage the C2 communication, [0132] PC5 announcements/control messages are exchanged between the UAV-C 203 and the UAV 201).
However, Pateromichelakis does not teach wherein the authorization request indicates a proximity-based services (ProSe) identifier associated with the C2 communications; and transmitting, to the application server, an authorization indication for the C2 communications via the direct link between the pair of UEs, wherein the authorization indication indicates a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier.
In an analogous art, Karampatsis teaches wherein the authorization request indicates a proximity-based services (ProSe) identifier associated with the C2 communications (FIG. 2 shows that the ProSe Function 207 receives ProSe-related authorization information form the ProSe Application Server 205 via PC2 for ProSe direct communication between WTRU 201 and 202 over PC5; [0113] the Match report includes the ProSe Application Code and/or the ProSe WTRU ID that are used in the discovery authorization procedure with the ProSe Application Server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
However, the combination of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis does not teach transmitting, to the application server, an authorization indication for the C2 communications via the direct link between the pair of UEs, wherein the authorization indication indicates a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier.
In an analogous art, Teyeb teaches transmitting, to the application server (FIG. 1D other networks 112), an authorization indication for the C2 communications via the direct link between the pair of UEs ([0040] The CN 106/115 provide the WTRUs with access to the other network 112 including other wireless networks that are operated by other service provider, [0121] At 1020, the remote WTRU sends the first RRC message (e.g., RRCSetupRequest) for connection establishment with a gNB via the relay WTRU (e.g., using a default L2 configuration on PC5), wherein the authorization indication indicates a destination layer-2 identifier associated with the ProSe identifier ([0091] An architecture of an end-to-end packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) and hop-by-hop RLC supports a WTRU-to-network relay (e.g., a layer-2 WTRU-to-network relay), [0103] A PC5-RRC connection is a logical connection between a pair of a source layer-2 ID and a destination layer-2 ID in the AS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer 2 relay as taught by Teyeb within the system of Pateromichelakis and Karampatsis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support sidelink with improved power efficiency (Teyeb [0089]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Pateromichelakis teaches wherein the pair of UEs ([0049] UEs/aerial UEs) includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and an unmanned aerial vehicle controller (UAV-C) ([0050] In FIG. 1B direct C2 mode 161, UAV-C/UAV pairs), and wherein the authorization request indicates a UAV identifier associated with the UAV and a UAV-C identifier associated with the UAV-C ([0172] a C2 UAE session setup request message (message 409) including UAV/UAV-C identification with ProSe codes for direct C2 operation with the UAV-C).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Pateromichelakis, Karampatsis and Teyeb, specifically Karampatsis teaches wherein the authorization request indicates a time duration for a validity timer associated with the ProSe identifier ([0075] a ProSe Application Code allocated per WTRU has an associated validity timer that runs in the ProSe Function and in the WTRU, [0185] the ProSe Function exchanges announce authorization messages including the ProSe Code and/or a validity timer with the ProSe Application Server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify a ProSe Function as taught by Karampatsis within the system of Pateromichelakis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network resources by enabling network assisted discovery of users (Karampatsis [0002]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0388909 A1 (Xu) discloses an authorization method and an apparatus, and relates to the field of communication technologies.
US 2024/0349236 A1 (Wang et al.) discloses cellular connectivity and quality of service (QOS) monitoring and prediction are provided for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) communication.
US 2025/0185089 A1 (IZUMI et al.) discloses communication between an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and a UAV controller using a 5G System (5GS).
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 THEODORE IM whose telephone number is (571)270-1955. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, UN C CHO can be reached on 571-272-7919. 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.
/T.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/REDENTOR PASIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights