DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant first office action is in response to communication filed on 12/08/2025.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 are pending of which claims 1 and 14-15 are the base independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant alleged that the system of “DEES’456”fails to show or merely suggest “determine that a condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment is met, wherein determining that the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs the sidelink communication with the second user equipment is met comprises determining that a first timer is running; and determine to use a first discovery model including broadcasting a discovery announcement to the at least one first user equipment upon the condition being met” as recited by applicant on page “10 of 12 ”.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because in this case, the system of “DEES’456” explicitly teaches the above limitation.
[0056] A yet further element may be the use of SL/PC5 discovery messages. Such messages can be used for instance to discover a peer relay communication device for an OoC communication device, to discover potential peer relay communication device(s) for the purpose of relay selection or reselection by a remote or relay communication device, or to query and/or report the current status and load of nearby relay communication devices. The information thus learned from discovery message(s) may then be used by a remote or relay communication device to make a local decision that impacts the scheduling of communication resources. For example, if a remote communication device uses mode 2 resource allocation, it may schedule its sidelink resources differently according to the relay device it has selected or reselected. Also, in case a scheduler in the access device is involved in the resource allocation for remote and/or relay communication devices, and if due to a relay reselection process a better parent relay communication device is selected by such a device, this may enable the scheduler in the access device from that point onwards to schedule its resources overall more efficiently for all the scheduled devices in its RAN. Transmitted discovery messages could be Model A (i.e. Announce) messages sent periodically thus triggered by a timer, or Model B (i.e. discovery response) messages triggered by a received Model B discovery query message from a peer communication device (e.g. based on the Models A and B as specified in TS 23.303).
DEES’456 teaches determine that a condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment is met(see para.0056, which discusses trigger by a timer as condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment, see para.0140-0143, which discusses the proposed buffer capacity reporting may be triggered by an event (e.g. rule or instruction) that happens at the relay communication device. Examples of such events may be…a timer-based trigger), wherein determining that the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment is met comprises determining that a first timer is running(see para.0056, which discusses trigger by a timer as condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment, thus trigger by a timer is indicative that the timer is running); and
determine to use a first discovery model including broadcasting a discovery announcement to the at least one first user equipment upon the condition being met(see para.0056, which discusses transmitted/broadcast discovery messages could be Model A (i.e. Announce) messages sent periodically thus triggered by a timer, see para.0140-0143).
Regarding claims 14-15, the same argument as claim 1 is also applied to claims 14-15 since claims 14-15 recited similar features as claim 1.
Regarding claims 3-12 and 16-20, the same argument as independent claim 1 is also applied to claims 3-12 and 16-20 since claims 3-12 and 16-20 are each depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 as discussed above.
Please, the Conclusion, for additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
In view of the above, it is clear the previously cited prior arts still disclose the applicant claim invention as set detailed in the rejection below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 17-19 are 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DEES et al (US 2023/0345456).
Regarding claim 1, 14-15, DEES’456 discloses a second user equipment (see abs, which discusses relay as second user equipment apparatus, see fig.1, 6 and 7 12-1, 12-2 , see para.0070, which discusses a first communication device (e.g. UE1) 12-1 and a second communication device (e.g. UE2) 12-2 are acting as relay communication devices)comprising at least one processor(see para.0097 & see para.0104, which discusses processor); and at least one memory storing instructions(see fig.3, buffer/memory 34, see para.0214, which discusses computer program and/or as dedicated hardware of the commissioning device or luminaire device, respectively. The computer program may be stored and/or distributed on a suitable medium, such as an optical storage medium or a solid-state medium, supplied together with or as part of other hardware) that, when executed by the at least one processor(see para.0104, which discusses one or more software routines used for controlling a processor or computing unit provided in the access device or the relay communication device, see para.0214, see para.0097, see para.0030, which discusses based on signal processing devices or chips controlled by software routines or programs stored in memories, thus software routines stored in memory to be executed by processor), cause the second user equipment to:
determine that a condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment is met(see para.0056, which discusses trigger by a timer as condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment, see para.0140-0143, which discusses the proposed buffer capacity reporting may be triggered by an event (e.g. rule or instruction) that happens at the relay communication device. Examples of such events may be…a timer-based trigger), wherein determining that the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment is met comprises determining that a first timer is running(see para.0056, which discusses trigger by a timer as condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment, thus trigger by a timer is indicative that the timer is running); and
determine to use a first discovery model including broadcasting a discovery announcement to the at least one first user equipment upon the condition being met(see para.0056, which discusses transmitted/broadcast discovery messages could be Model A (i.e. Announce) messages sent periodically thus triggered by a timer, see para.0140-0143).
Regarding claim 11, DEES’456 discloses wherein the at least one memory further store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second user equipment to: determine that a load of the second user equipment is above a load threshold see para.0026, which discusses report the relay communication device as second user equipment load, para.0195, which discusses flag indicating whether a buffer load threshold has been exceeded/above or not, is sent to the access device, thus determine load above the threshold); determine to use the second discovery model or(due to or language, only one of them is being considered) set a periodicity of a discovery announcement to a maximum periodicity of discovery announcements(see para.0056, which discusses Model B (i.e. discovery response) messages triggered by a received Model B discovery query message from a peer communication device (e.g. based on the Models A and B as specified in TS 23.303), thus determine to use model B).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEES et al (US 2023/0345456) and further in view of Kim et al (US 2018/0317268).
Regarding claim 6 and 20, DEES’456 discloses wherein the at least one memory further store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second user equipment to: determine to use a second discovery model including sending a discovery response to at least one first user equipment in response to receiving a relay discovery solicitation from the at least one first user equipment(see para.0056, which discusses Model B (i.e. discovery response) messages triggered by a received Model B discovery query message from a peer communication device (e.g. based on the Models A and B as specified in TS 23.303).
As discussed above, although DEES’456 discloses determine to use a second discovery model including sending a discovery response to at least one first user equipment in response to receiving a relay discovery solicitation from the at least one first user equipment(see para.0056, which discusses Model B (i.e. discovery response) messages triggered by a received Model B discovery query message from a peer communication device (e.g. based on the Models A and B as specified in TS 23.303), DEES’456 does not explicitly show the use of “determine that the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs the sidelink communication with the second user equipment is no longer met” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “determine that the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs the sidelink communication with the second user equipment is no longer met” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Kim’268.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Kim’268 teaches the use of determine that the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs the sidelink communication with the second user equipment is no longer met(see para.0194, which discusses if the remote UE fails to receive a PC5D message from the serving relay UE until the timer T41 expires, thus no longer met since the timer is expired, see also para.0195-0196); and determine to use a second discovery model including sending a discovery response to at least one first user equipment in response to receiving a relay discovery solicitation from the at least one first user equipment(see para.0194, which discusses if the remote UE fails to receive a PC5D message from the serving relay UE until the timer T41 expires, the remote UE transmits a PC5D solicitation message as second discovery model of a measuring purpose to the serving relay UE. If a PC5D response message is received in response to the PC5D solicitation message, the remote UE resets the timer and starts the timer again, see also para.0195-0196, see fig.13, which shows model A and model B, see fig.15, which shows transmit PC5D solicitation message 1510 and receive received transmit PC5D response message 1520, see fig.17, 1710 and 1720).
In view of the above, having the system of DEES’456 and then given the well-established teaching of Kim’268, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DEES’456 to include “determine that the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment is no longer met” as taught by Kim’268, since Kim’268 stated in para.0015-0016+ that such a modification would reduce signaling overhead of unnecessarily transmitting and receiving a discovery message in ProSe communication and reduce unnecessary transmission of a discovery message in ProSe communication, it is able to sufficiently secure radio resource for performing ProSe communication.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, although DEES’456 discloses determine that the condition in (see para.0056, which discusses trigger by a timer as condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment), DEES’456 does not explicitly show the use of “receive the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment from the network” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “receive the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment from the network” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Kim’268.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Kim’268 teaches the use of receive the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with the second user equipment from the network(see para.0192, which discusses when a remote UE establishes a connection with a relay UE, the remote UE can configure a prescribed timer T41xx (xx corresponds to a random value) to transmit a PC5D message, which is transmitted to periodically measure quality of a radio link with the relay UE. The timer T41xx is initiated in a manner of being configured by an initial value and the initial value of the timer can be set to a UE in advance. Or, the initial value can be configured by a network as network. Or, a serving relay UE can forward the initial value of the timer to a remote UE via a PC5D message or a PC5S message, see para.0193-0196, receive the condition…from the network).
In view of the above, having the system of DEES’456 and then given the well-established teaching of Kim’268, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DEES’456 to include “receive the condition indicating that at least one first user equipment needs a sidelink communication with a second user equipment from the network” as taught by Kim’268, since Kim’268 stated in para.0015-0016+ that such a modification would reduce signaling overhead of unnecessarily transmitting and receiving a discovery message in ProSe communication and reduce unnecessary transmission of a discovery message in ProSe communication, it is able to sufficiently secure radio resource for performing ProSe communication.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Following prior arts are related to the present claimed invention:
Kuge et al (US 2018/0192280) teaches, see at least fig.16 & see para.0438, First, UE_A 8 starts counting of the timer “T1” based on the announce request procedure or the reception of the discovery response, and makes the Relay Server Code “C1” valid (S1606), see para.0439, the UE_A 8 may transmit the announcing signal to perform the announcing during the counting of the timer “T1” being executed, see fig.1, UE_A 8 as relay device.
Lee et al (US 2018/0234862) teaches, see para.0008, receiving a relay configuration message from a network via a dedicated signaling, the relay configuration message including at least one condition for which the UE considers itself as a valid relay; performing relay functions when the at least one condition is met, see para.0011, the at least one condition comprises a validity timer. In this case, during the validity timer is running, it is determined that the at least one condition is met, see fig.13, para.0124, 0160, the discovery procedure of relay UE refers to announcement of discovery message in case of Model A or monitoring of solicitation message from discoverer in case of Model B
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINNCELAS LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5138. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/VINNCELAS LOUIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474