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 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, applicant argues that Rakotoharison fails to teach the relay UE receiving authorization information indicating that the UE-to-network relay for emergency services is authorized for the relay UE. Examine respectfully traverses this argument.
Examiner notes paragraphs 41, 52 and 53, which explains what the core network does before configuring a potential relay-UE with bearers needed to perform relay services including emergency relay services as disclosed in paragraph 42. Paragraphs 41, 52 and 53 make clear that some form of “consent” is determined by the core network before deciding whether to configure said relay bearers. Paragraphs 41, 52 and 53 further make clear that consent specific to emergency relay services may be obtained/determined by said core network before configuring the potential relay UE with said bearers, such that even in the event that the UE does not have user consent to perform regular relay services, it may still be configured to perform emergency relay services. For this reason, it is the examiner’s belief that the configuration recited in paragraph 42 is authorization information “indicating that the UE-to-network relay for emergency services is authorized for the relay UE”.
Applicant further traverses the Official Notice of claim 21, and respectfully requests substantiating evidence. Examiner believes this to be in reference to claims 26 and 27 for which Official Notice was claimed. MPEP section 2144.03 (c) states the following:
“To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 (“[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings” to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate. “
In accordance with MPEP guidelines, Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse Examiner’s Official Notice will be treated as an Admission of Prior Art by applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 44 recites wherein the authorization information includes an explicit permission for that relay UE to provide emergency relay services to remote UEs.
In reviewing applicant’s original Specification, examiner was unable to find explicit support for authorization information from a core network including “an explicit permission for that relay UE to provide emergency relay services to remote UEs”
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0180565 (Rakotoharison et al.) in view of US 2019/0037518 (Russell et al.).
As to claim 1, Rakotoharison teaches an apparatus of a relay user equipment (UE) comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
generate, for transmission from the relay UE to a core network, capability information indicating that the relay UE supports a UE-to-network relay for emergency services (see paragraph 40, UE informs MME and other core network elements of its emergency relay capability);
process authorization information received by the relay UE from the core network and indicating that the UE-to- network relay for emergency services is authorized for the relay UE (see paragraph 41-42 and 52-53, using the UE relay capability information and user consent information for the UE, that may include consent specific to providing emergency relay services, the network configures bearers for the UE to function as a relay); and
interface circuitry coupled with the processing circuitry and configured to establish a relay communication between the core network and a remote UE that is out of range of cellular service, wherein the relay UE is to relay a communication between the remote UE via the relay communication (see paragraphs 2, 42 and 52, UE functions as a relay for another UE that may be out of the coverage area of the network during an emergency).
What is lacking from Rakotoharison is and a public safety answering point (PSAP) is via the relay communication.
In analogous art, Russell teaches a relay UE providing emergency communication services to a remote UE by facilitating communication with a PSAP (see Russell, paragraph 405).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to facilitate emergency services to a remote UE in an emergency situation.
As to claim 2, Rakotoharison further teaches wherein the capability information is sent as part of non-access stratum (NAS) capability information in a mobility management message (see paragraph 40).
As to claim 3, Rakotoharison further teaches wherein the capability information is sent based on user input at the relay UE or on a configuration stored at the UE (see paragraphs 49, 52 and 53).
As to claim 14, Rakotoharison further teaches wherein establishing the relay communication comprises establishing a communication session between the relay UE and the core network, wherein the communication session has a higher priority than another communication session of the relay UE (see paragraphs 52 and 53, certain users or groups associated with remote UEs may have higher priority, but also all remote UEs may be granted relay services in an emergency).
Claims 4, 8, 12, 17, 19 and 20-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0180565 (Rakotoharison et al.) in view of US 2019/0037518 (Russell et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0353799 (Talebi Fard et al.).
As to claim 4, what is further lacking from Rakotaharison is wherein the UE-to-network relay is a layer 2 UE-to-network relay, and wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the relay UE to: determine that emergency services are allowed in a cell on which the relay UE is camped; and determine that the layer 2 UE-to-network relay for emergency services is to be provided based on the UE-to-network relay for emergency services being authorized and on the emergency services being allowed.
In analogous art, Talebi Ford teaches a relay UE being an Layer 2 relay and camping in a cell that permits emergency services (see Talebi-Ford, paragraphs 298 and 306-307). Note that Rakotaharison already teaches the relay UE being authorized for providing emergency relay services.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the cell supports the emergency relay service.
As to claim 8, what is further lacking from Rakotaharison is wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the relay UE to: broadcast a UE-to-network layer discovery announcement as part of a UE-to-network relay discovery, wherein the UE-to-network layer discovery announcement includes an emergency relay service code indicating that the relay UE supports connectivity for emergency services.
In analogous art, Talebi Ford teaches a relay UE broadcasting a discovery announce message comprising a relay service code with an emergency indication (see Talebi-Ford, paragraphs 307 and 324).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the remote UE know what services are provided by the relay UE.
As to claim 12, Rakotaharison further teaches and select, based on the indication that the relay communication is requested for emergency services, an access identity or an access category for evaluating radio access barring (see paragraph 53, relay services may be granted by relay UE to remote UEs based on they belong to a pre-approved group or user and whether it’s an emergency situation).
What is further lacking from Rakotaharison is wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the relay UE to: receive, from the remote UE, a message requesting the relay communication, wherein the message includes an indication that the relay communication is requested for emergency services.
In analogous art, Talebi Ford teaches a relay UE receiving a relay connection request from a remote UE with an emergency indication (see Talebi-Ford, paragraph 307).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the relay UE know what services are desired by the remote UE.
As to claim 17, Rakotaharison further teaches and wherein establishing the relay communication comprises establishing a connection to a radio access network (RAN) by indicating that the connection is established for relaying emergency registration and traffic from the remote UE (see paragraphs 40-42).
What is further lacking from Rakotaharison is wherein the UE-to-network relay is a layer 2 UE-to-network relay.
In analogous art, Talebi Ford teaches a relay UE being an Layer 2 relay (see Talebi-Ford, paragraph 298).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to provide simpler and faster links provided by Layer 2 communications.
As to claim 19, what is further lacking from Rakotaharison is wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the relay UE to: determine that the relay communication is for emergency services based on a cause value indicated by the remote UE in a direct link connection establishment phase or on an establishment cause indicated in a message of the remote UE to the core network.
In analogous art, Talebi Ford teaches the relay UE receiving a direct communication request to provide relay services, said request comprising an emergency indication (see Talebi-Ford, paragraphs 296 and 307).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to inform the relay UE that the remote UE needs emergency services.
As to claim 20, Rakotaharison further teaches and wherein the communication request is accorded, by the relay UE, a higher priority than a request for a non-emergency service (see paragraphs 52 and 53).
What is further lacking from Rakotaharison is wherein the relay communication is established based on a direct communication request of the remote UE for emergency services.
In analogous art, Talebi Ford teaches the relay UE receiving a direct communication request to provide relay services (see Talebi-Ford, paragraphs 296 and 307).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to provide simpler and faster links provided by direct communications.
As to claim 21, Rakotaharison further teaches and select, based on a prioritization rule, the first remote UE instead of the second remote UE for the UE-to-network relay (see paragraphs 52 and 53, remote UEs corresponding to predetermined users or groups given higher priority).
What is further lacking from Rakotaharison is wherein the remote UE is a first remote UE, and wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the relay UE to:receive, from the first remote UE and a second remote UE, a first direct communication request and a second direct communication request, respectively.
In analogous art, Talebi Ford teaches the relay UE receiving direct communication requests from remote UEs to provide relay services (see Talebi-Ford, paragraphs 296 and 307).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to provide simpler and faster links provided by direct communications.
As to claim 22, Rakotaharison further teaches wherein the prioritization rule indicates a remote UE selection based on access identities configured in the remote UE (see paragraphs 52 and 53, remote UEs corresponding to predetermined users or groups given higher priority).
As to claim 23, Talebi Ford further teaches wherein an access identity of the first remote UE is included in the first direct communication request (see Talebi Ford, paragraphs 296 and 324).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as allow the relay UE to identify the remote UE
Claims 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0180565 (Rakotoharison et al.) in view of US 2019/0037518 (Russell et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0244685 (Orsino et al.).
As to claim 6, what is further lacking form Rakotoharison is wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the relay UE to: determine a battery level of the relay UE; and determine that the UE-to-network relay for emergency services is to be provided based on the UE-to-network relay for emergency services being authorized and on the battery level.
In analogous art, Orsino teaches a relay UE determining whether to provide relay services based on its battery level (see Orsino, paragraphs 183-185). Note that Rakotoharison teaches the relay service being an authorized emergency service.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the relay UE has sufficient battery power to facilitate the relay service.
As to claim 7, Orsino further teaches wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the relay UE to: send, to the remote UE, an indication of the battery level as part of a UE-to-network relay discovery (see Orsino, paragraphs 183-185).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the relay UE has sufficient battery power to facilitate the relay service.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0180565 (Rakotoharison et al.) in view of US 2019/0037518 (Russell et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0238807 (Lee et al.).
As to claim 13, Rakotoharison further teaches wherein establishing the relay communication comprises establishing a communication session between the relay UE and the core network based on a UE-to-network relay registration (see paragraph 40).
What is further lacking form Rakotoharison is, wherein a UE-to-network relay de- registration is initiated only after the communication session is terminated.
In analogous art, Lee teaches a relay UE de-registering its relay function once all active relay sessions are terminated (see Lee, paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the remote UE doesn’t have its relay service terminated prematurely.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0180565 (Rakotoharison et al.) in view of US 2019/0037518 (Russell et al.) in view of US 2022/0353799 (Talebi Fard et al.), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view US 2021/0298034 (He et al.).
As to claim 18, what is further lacking from Rakotoharison is wherein the traffic of the remote UE is accorded, by the relay UE, a same priority as a signaling radio bearer of the relay UE.
In analogous art, He teaches a relay UE serving a remote UE such that traffic for the remote UE through the relay UE is assigned the same priority as that of the relay UE (see He, paragraph 240).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the remote UE receives an optimal quality of service.
Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0180565 (Rakotoharison et al.) in view of US 2019/0037518 (Russell et al.) in view of US 2022/0353799 (Talebi Fard et al.), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view US 2019/0191356 (Norp et al.).
As to claim 24, what is further lacking from Rakotoharison is wherein the prioritization rule indicates a remote UE selection based on a corresponding contact in a contacts list of the relay UE.
In analogous art, Norp teaches a relay UE determining whether a remote UE is on a contact list before providing relay services (see Norp, paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to prioritize users closely associated with the user of the relay UE.
Claims 26 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0180565 (Rakotoharison et al.) in view of US 2019/0037518 (Russell et al.) in view of US 2022/0353799 (Talebi Fard et al.), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claim 26, what is further lacking from Rakotoharison is wherein the prioritization rule indicates a remote UE selection based on a first come first serve basis, wherein the first direct communication request is received prior to the second direct communication request.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts for wireless access to be prioritized on a first come first serve basis.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to prioritize users in a universally fair manner.
As to claim 27, what is further lacking from Rakotoharison is wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the relay UE to: send, to the second remote UE, a response to the second direct communication request, wherein the response indicates that the second direct communication request is denied or a cause of the second direct communication request being denied.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts for wireless devices to be notified that their connection request has been rejected.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to inform a remote UE of their rejection.
Claims 44 and 45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0180565 (Rakotoharison et al.) in view of US 2019/0037518 (Russell et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in US 2022/0095168 (Kuo).
As to claim 44, what is explicitly lacking from Rakotoharison is wherein the authorization information indicates a relay service code (RSC), and wherein the relay communication is established based on the RSC.
In analogous art, Kuo teaches a network transmitting authorization and provisioning parameters to a relay UE indicating a relay service code for use in establishing a relay connection (see Kuo, paragraphs 52-58).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the relay and remote UE know what services are provided by the relay UE.
As to claim 45, what is explicitly lacking from Rakotoharison is wherein the authorization information includes an explicit permission for that relay UE to provide emergency relay services to remote UEs.
In analogous art, Kuo teaches a network transmitting authorization and provisioning parameters to a relay UE which includes an authorization policy for acting as a relay and authorized PLMNs for which the relay UE is authorized to relay communications for (see Kuo, paragraphs 52-55).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rakotoharison so as to ensure that the relay UE know what services are provided by the relay UE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641