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 .
Previously Indicated Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of original claims 13 and 18-19 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered references to Chitrakar et al. and Wu et al.. New grounds of rejection based on the newly cited references follow for claims which have incorporated those features. As a result, this action is made Non-Final.
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.
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 11, 12, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2015/0358067, Zhang hereafter) in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0303862, Wu hereafter).
RE claim 11, Zhang discloses wireless relay device and method comprising: a wireless transceiver configured to receive, from a source wireless device, communications data; and a controller configured to decode and forward the received communications data to at least one destination wireless device (Paragraphs 242-243, relay node receives, decodes and forwards a data frame to a destination node).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose further comprising at the source wireless device, determining a plurality of transmission parameters for all relayed transmission and signaling the transmission parameters in a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU).
However, Wu teaches further comprising at the source wireless device, determining a plurality of transmission parameters for all relayed transmission and signaling the transmission parameters in a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (Paragraph 59 teaches an adaptation header added to an RLC PDU and includes routing information that is useful to the relay UE in determining the manner of forwarding data taken from the first data packet to the destination remote UE. It teaches “ the adaptation header 418 may include an identity of an end-to-end bearer (e.g., the PDCP bearer 352) between the source remote UE 302 and the destination remote UE 306. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include a Layer 2 address for the source remote UE 302. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include a Layer 2 address of the destination remote UE 306. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include QoS information corresponding to the first data packet. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include an index (sometimes referred to herein as a “local index”) that can be used by the relay UE 304 to determine a bearer between the relay UE 304 and the destination remote UE 306 to use to forward data to the destination remote UE 306,”. Paragraph 78 further teaches “if the adaptation header includes a Layer 2 destination address field and the value in that field is an address of a destination remote UE, the relay UE may then use the address of the destination remote UE and a bearer ID value from an end-to-end bearer ID field to determine a PC5 link to forward the data of interest toward the destination remote UE in a data packet that also includes an appropriate adaptation header (with appropriate routing information, as described above) that the relay UE forms for this purpose”. Based on the above, Wu appears to teach that the adaptation header is decoded, read and removed from an ingress packet header, then recreated with updated information and added back into an egress packet header. As such, this creates “transmission parameters” that accompany the relayed PDU from end to end.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang with the teachings of Wu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 12, Zhang in view of Wu discloses the wireless relay device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Zhang further discloses sharing a transmit opportunity (TXOP) of the source wireless device with the at least one wireless relay device in a multi-hop transmission (Paragraphs 158-152 and 242-243, the relay and source device share a TXOP).
RE claim 19, Zhang in view of Wu discloses the wireless relay device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Wu further teaches providing relaying signaling in each physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to be relayed, and wherein the relaying signaling is embedded in a physical layer (PHY) preamble or in a Media Access Control (MAC) header (Paragraph 59 teaches an adaptation header added to an RLC PDU and includes routing information that is useful to the relay UE in determining the manner of forwarding data taken from the first data packet to the destination remote UE. It teaches “ the adaptation header 418 may include an identity of an end-to-end bearer (e.g., the PDCP bearer 352) between the source remote UE 302 and the destination remote UE 306. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include a Layer 2 address for the source remote UE 302. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include a Layer 2 address of the destination remote UE 306. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include QoS information corresponding to the first data packet. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include an index (sometimes referred to herein as a “local index”) that can be used by the relay UE 304 to determine a bearer between the relay UE 304 and the destination remote UE 306 to use to forward data to the destination remote UE 306,”. Paragraph 78 further teaches “if the adaptation header includes a Layer 2 destination address field and the value in that field is an address of a destination remote UE, the relay UE may then use the address of the destination remote UE and a bearer ID value from an end-to-end bearer ID field to determine a PC5 link to forward the data of interest toward the destination remote UE in a data packet that also includes an appropriate adaptation header (with appropriate routing information, as described above) that the relay UE forms for this purpose”. Based on the above, Wu appears to teach that the adaptation header is decoded, read and removed from an ingress packet header, then recreated with updated information and added back into an egress packet header. As such, this creates “transmission parameters” that accompany the relayed PDU from end to end.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang with the teachings of Wu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 21, Zhang discloses a method for wireless communications, the method comprising: receiving, from a source wireless device, communications data using at least one wireless relay device; and decoding and forwarding the received communications data to at least one destination wireless device using the at least one wireless relay device (Paragraphs 242-243, relay node receives, decodes and forwards a data frame to a destination node).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose providing relaying signaling in each physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to be relayed, and wherein the relaying signaling is embedded in a physical layer (PHY) preamble or in a Media Access Control (MAC) header.
However, Wu teaches providing relaying signaling in each physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) to be relayed, and wherein the relaying signaling is embedded in a physical layer (PHY) preamble or in a Media Access Control (MAC) header (Paragraph 59 teaches an adaptation header added to an RLC PDU and includes routing information that is useful to the relay UE in determining the manner of forwarding data taken from the first data packet to the destination remote UE. It teaches “ the adaptation header 418 may include an identity of an end-to-end bearer (e.g., the PDCP bearer 352) between the source remote UE 302 and the destination remote UE 306. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include a Layer 2 address for the source remote UE 302. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include a Layer 2 address of the destination remote UE 306. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include QoS information corresponding to the first data packet. Additionally or alternatively, the adaptation header 418 may include an index (sometimes referred to herein as a “local index”) that can be used by the relay UE 304 to determine a bearer between the relay UE 304 and the destination remote UE 306 to use to forward data to the destination remote UE 306,”. Paragraph 78 further teaches “if the adaptation header includes a Layer 2 destination address field and the value in that field is an address of a destination remote UE, the relay UE may then use the address of the destination remote UE and a bearer ID value from an end-to-end bearer ID field to determine a PC5 link to forward the data of interest toward the destination remote UE in a data packet that also includes an appropriate adaptation header (with appropriate routing information, as described above) that the relay UE forms for this purpose”. Based on the above, Wu appears to teach that the adaptation header is decoded, read and removed from an ingress packet header, then recreated with updated information and added back into an egress packet header. As such, this creates “transmission parameters” that accompany the relayed PDU from end to end.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang with the teachings of Wu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wu and further in view of Chitrakar et al. (WO 2017/150042 A1, Chitrakar hereafter.)
RE claim 13, Zhang in view of Wu discloses the wireless relay device of claim 11 as set forth above. Zhang in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose setting up an end-to-end block acknowledgement (BA) agreement between the destination wireless device and the source wireless device, including defining an end-to-end sequence number space between the destination wireless device and the source wireless device.
However, Chitrakar teaches setting up an end-to-end block acknowledgement (BA) agreement between the destination wireless device and the source wireless device, including defining an end-to-end sequence number space between the destination wireless device and the source wireless device (Paragraphs 16-17 teach the establishment of a Block Ack agreement between an Originator and a Recipient. This process is also taught to include the recipient maintaining a “scoreboard” to record the reception status of each frame. Paragraphs 29-40 teaches the content and rules for this scoreboard bitmap which represents the entire sequence number space of the Block Ack Agreement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang in view of Wu with the teachings of Chitrakar since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wu and further in view of Nadathur et al. (US 2016/0359629, Nadathur hereafter.)
RE claim 14, Zhang discloses the wireless relay device of claim 12 as set forth above. Zhang does not explicitly disclose providing an end-to-end security setup between the destination wireless device and the source wireless device.
However, Nadathur teaches providing an end-to-end security setup between the destination wireless device and the source wireless device (Paragraph 117, a controller device and an accessory device can exchange messages via a relay service and establish a pair-verified session (based on their previously-established local pairing) and can encrypt subsequent messages using a session key associated with the pair-verified session, thereby establishing end-to-end security through the relay).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang in view of Wu with the teachings of Nadathur in order to provide for end-to-end security for the relay of packets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
RE claim 1, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest the multi-hop transmission is conducted through an aggregated physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) wherein the aggregated PPDU comprises a first PPDU and a second PPDU that is a relayed version of the first PPDU.
RE claims 2-10, the claims depend upon claim 1 and thereby include the allowable features set forth above.
Claims 15-17 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.
RE claim 15, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest the aggregated PPDU comprises a first PPDU and a second PPDU that is a relayed version of the first PPDU, wherein a Legacy Signal Field (L-SIG) length of the first PPDU covers an entire aggregated PPDU transmission, and wherein the second PPDU comprises a compressed preamble.
RE claims 16-17, the claims depend upon claim 1 and thereby include the allowable features set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461