DETAILED ACTION
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 filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 52, Applicant argued KIM Publication US 20190082495 A1 is not entitled to claim the filing date of its provisional-application US 62257725.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the KIM Publication clearly claims priority date of its provisional application, and ultimately its provisional application is relied as prior art.
Applicant further argued KIM Publication and its provisional fail to disclose “transmitting a second D2D message to the second WTRU based on receiving the rejection message from the network, the second D2D message indicating rejection cause information”.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued limitation is broad, and Applicant did not particularly argued Tenny. The claimed phrase “indicating” is broad unlike “including”, thus the argued limitation may be read as considering that the second D2D message is a relayed message of the received rejection message, both messages are result of and indicating an authentication failure (rejection cause) at the core network. Tenny discloses in [0039]: “A baseline behavior may involve the relay UE accepting the announced identity of the RD and assuming that authentication at the core network will take care of verification. If authentication fails in such a situation, the core network will reject the attach request of the RD and the RD should stop attempting to attach.” The term “the RD should stop attempting to attach” implies that the RD has been informed by a rejection signal from the core network via the relay UE, and the rejection signal or the relayed rejection signal indicating the rejection cause i.e. authentication failure at the core network.
If considering the second D2D message including (which is not in the claim) rejection cause information. KIM provisional (page 48) discloses upon authentication failure, the relay UE transmits a rejection signal with rejection cause information (i.e. authentication failure) to the RD. Tenny further discloses in [0038]: “the relay UE needs to be informed of the authentication result so that it can confirm or deny if the original admission decision regarding the RD is correct. Furthermore, there should be confirmation that the same identity is used in both procedures (RD identity confirmation at the relay UE and RD authentication at the core network)”, [0084]: “The relay UE checks the identity of the RD as provided in the authentication result against the identity of the RD as provided by the RD in the relay service request received from the RD”; the relay UE knows the authentication result (i.e. authentication failure (rejection) or successful) received from the core network, and the relay UE additionally ensures and authenticates the RD, if authentication fails (mismatch), attaching and sending the rejection cause information to the RD as taught by KIM would have been obvious to improve functionality and clarity of relay management.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 52-53 and 55-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenny (US 20170325270 A1) in view of BAGHEL (US 20170111754 A1 supported by us-provisional-application US 62242846 dated 20151016) and KIM (US 20190082495 A1 supported by us-provisional-application US 62257725 dated 20151120).
For claim 52. Tenny discloses A method implemented by a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (figure 16, first WTRU relay UE1607), the method comprising: establishing a device to device (D2D) communication link between the first WTRU and a second WTRU (figure 16, second WTRU 1605), wherein the first WTRU acts a relay to a network for the second WTRU; receiving a first D2D message from the second WTRU ([0095], figure 16, step 1622); sending a message to the network based on receiving the first D2D message from the second WTRU ([0095], figure 16, step 1624); receiving a rejection message from the network in response to the message (figure 16, step 1638; [0039]: “If authentication fails in such a situation, the core network will reject the attach request of the RD”, thus failed authentication at the core network=rejection in one embodiment; [0041]: “If the relay UE knows that the RD has failed authentication at the core network, the relay UE can immediately throttle the relay request”, thus failed authentication at the core network=rejection in one embodiment).
Tenny does not mention the first D2D message comprising a non-access stratum (NAS) message.
This teaching is disclosed by BAGHEL ([0082], [0091], figure 9 step 916).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by BAGHEL into the art of Tenny as to use NAS protocol for improving integrity and security.
Tenny and BAGHEL do not mention transmitting a second D2D message to the second WTRU based on receiving the rejection message from the network, the second D2D message indicating rejection cause information.
KIM discloses transmitting a second D2D message to the second WTRU (remote UE) based on a rejection message, the second D2D message indicating rejection cause information (figures 13, 14, 17, [0141], [0154]-[0156]; provisional-application US 62257725: page 48; rejection=authentication failure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by KIM into the art of Tenny as modified by BAGHEL as to send reject cause authentication failure to the remote UE (the second WTRU) based on receiving the authentication failure from the network, to improve functionality and management for the requesting/remote UEs.
For claim 53. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the method of claim 52, Tenny discloses wherein the NAS message comprises a tracking area update (TAU) message ([0095]: The relay service request includes RD 1605 sending a relay service request with a TAU message to relay UE 1607).
For claim 55. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the method of claim 52, Tenny discloses wherein the second D2D message indicates that the second WTRU is to re-connect to the network ([0043], [0057], [0061], [0068], [0069], figure 16, step 1638 relaying accept messages periodically or on a time base).
For claim 56. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the method of claim 52, Tenny discloses wherein the first D2D message and the second D2D message correspond to respective PC5 messages ([0035]).
For claim 57. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the method of claim 52, Tenny discloses wherein the first D2D message and the second D2D message correspond to respective sidelink messages ([0035]).
For claim 58. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the method of claim 52, Tenny discloses further comprising: performing a D2D WTRU discovery procedure to discover the second WTRU ([0057], [0075]).
For claim 59. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the method of claim 52, Tenny discloses wherein the message sent to the network comprises an identity of the second WTRU ([0052], [0095], globally unique temporary ID (GUTI) of RD).
For claim 60. Tenny discloses A first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (figure 16, first WTRU relay UE1607) comprising a processor and memory, the processor and memory configured to: establish a device to device (D2D) communication link between the first WTRU and a second WTRU (figure 16, second WTRU 1605), wherein the first WTRU is configured to act as a relay to a network for the second WTRU; receive a first D2D message from the second WTRU ([0095], figure 16, step 1622); send a message to the network based on receiving the first D2D message from the second WTRU ([0095], figure 16, step 1624); receive a rejection message from the network in response to the message (figure 16, step 1638; [0039]: “If authentication fails in such a situation, the core network will reject the attach request of the RD”, thus failed authentication at the core network=rejection in one embodiment; [0041]: “If the relay UE knows that the RD has failed authentication at the core network, the relay UE can immediately throttle the relay request”, thus failed authentication at the core network=rejection in one embodiment).
Tenny does not mention the first D2D message comprising a non-access stratum (NAS) message.
This teaching is disclosed by BAGHEL ([0082], [0091], figure 9 step 916).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by BAGHEL into the art of Tenny as to use NAS protocol for improving integrity and security.
Tenny and BAGHEL do not mention transmit a second D2D message to the second WTRU based on receiving the rejection message from the network, the second D2D message indicating rejection cause information.
KIM discloses transmitting a second D2D message to the second WTRU (remote UE) based on a rejection message, the second D2D message indicating rejection cause information (figures 13, 14, 17, [0141], [0154]-[0156]; provisional-application US 62257725: page 48; rejection=authentication failure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by KIM into the art of Tenny as modified by BAGHEL as to send reject cause authentication failure to the remote UE (the second WTRU) based on receiving the authentication failure from the network, to improve functionality and management for the requesting/remote UEs.
For claim 61. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the first WTRU of claim 60, Tenny discloses wherein the NAS message comprises a tracking area update (TAU) message ([0095]: The relay service request includes RD 1605 sending a relay service request with a TAU message to relay UE 1607).
For claim 62. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the first WTRU of claim 60, Tenny discloses wherein the second D2D message indicates that the second WTRU is to re-connect to the network ([0043], [0057], [0061], [0068], [0069], figure 16, step 1638 relaying accept messages periodically or on a time base).
For claim 63. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the first WTRU of claim 60, Tenny discloses wherein the first D2D message and the second D2D message correspond to respective PC5 messages ([0035]).
For claim 64. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the first WTRU of claim 60, Tenny discloses wherein the first D2D message and the second D2D message correspond to respective sidelink messages ([0035]).
For claim 65. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the first WTRU of claim 60, Tenny discloses further comprising: performing a D2D WTRU discovery procedure to discover the second WTRU ([0057], [0075]).
For claim 66. Tenny in combination with BAGHEL and KIM substantially teaches the first WTRU of claim 60, Tenny discloses wherein the message sent to the network comprises an identity of the second WTRU ([0052], [0095], globally unique temporary ID (GUTI) of RD).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 54 and 67 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims 54 and 67 are allowable over the prior art of record because none of the references, either alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious the claims 54 and 67.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300, submitted online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only, Registered users of the USPTO's EFS-Web system may submit a response electronically through EFS-Web at https://efs.uspto.gov/TruePassSample/AuthenticateUserLocalEPF.html), or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rui Meng Hu whose telephone number is 571-270-1105, email is ruimeng.hu@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on (571)272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Rui Meng Hu/
R.H./rh
December 4, 2025
/JINSONG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643