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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (and 12, 20) on pages 11-15 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Particularly, indefinite issues based on newly added amendments including “one or both of a mapping relationship between logical channels (LCHs) on first and second sidelinks and quality of service (QoS) information of each of the LCHs” (lines 5-6), “the sidelink” (line 22), along with other issues of independent claims as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12-14, and 20-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: lines 11-12 includes “quality of service information” which should be “QoS information”. Further, line 19 includes “[based on] a trigger condition in the first configuration message”, however, while para. 105 of the specification includes similar language, in looking to the examples of para. [108-109, 111-113], the claim language includes idiomatic issues, for example: para. 108 indicates the “trigger condition” is “there is to-be-transmitted data on the LCH1/LCH2” and the first configuration message includes LCH identifiers; para. 109 indicates the “trigger condition” is “there is to-be-transmitted data on the LCG1 or LCG2” and the first configuration message includes LCG identifiers; para. 111 indicates the “trigger condition” is “there is to-be-transmitted data on the bearer 1 / the bearer 2” and the first configuration message includes bearer identifiers; para. 112 indicates the “trigger condition” is “there is to-be-transmitted data greater than or equal to X bytes on the LCH1 or there is to-be-transmitted data greater than or equal to X bytes on the LCG1” and the first configuration message includes a data volume threshold X bytes and an LCH1 identifier or an LCG1 identifier; and para. 113 indicates the “trigger condition” is ”a timer interval between second indication information and first indication information is greater than or equal to the timer duration T” and the first configuration message includes timer duration T. The current claim language indicates the first configuration message includes, e.g., “there is to-be-transmitted data on the LCH1/LCH2”, “there is to-be-transmitted data on the LCG1 or LCG2”, “there is to-be-transmitted data on the bearer 1 / the bearer 2”, “there is to-be-transmitted data greater than or equal to X bytes on the LCH1 or there is to-be-transmitted data greater than or equal to X bytes on the LCG1” which in light of the examples, the limitation should be similar to - [based on] a trigger associated with information included in the first configuration information.
Regarding claim 3: lines 1-2 includes “The method according to claim 1, wherein the trigger condition comprising the first configuration message comprises” which should be “The method according to claim 1, wherein ”. Further, line 5 includes “threshold and timer duration” which should be “threshold, and a timer duration”.
Regarding claim 5: line 10 includes “threshold and timer duration” which should be “threshold, and a timer duration”.
Regarding claim 8: line 2 includes “logical channel (LCH)” which should be “”. Further, in view of “trigger condition” of parent claim 1, line 2 including “the trigger condition is associated with” should be “the trigger ”.
Regarding claim 12: lines 9-10 includes “quality of service information” which should be “QoS information”.
Regarding claim 13: line 9 includes “timer duration” which should be “a timer duration”.
Regarding claim 14: lines 2-3 includes “determining the first configuration message is based on the second configuration message” which should be “determining the first configuration message [[is]] based on the second configuration message”.
Regarding claim 20: the claim is interpreted and objected to for substantially the same reasons as claim 1; further, line 3 includes “the processor” should be “the one or more processors”, and lines 3-4 include “to provide at least the following operations:” should be similar to - to perform operations comprising: to follow conventional claim language.
Regarding claim 21: the claim is interpreted and objected to for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 22: the claim is interpreted and objected to for substantially the same reasons as claim 5; further, lines 2-3 includes “the executable instructions cause the processor and transceiver to cooperate to provide at least the following further operations:” which should be similar to - the executable instructions further cause the processor and transceiver to cooperate to perform operations comprising: to follow conventional claim language.
Regarding claim 23: the claim is interpreted and objected to for substantially the same reasons as claim 8; further, line 3 include includes “timer duration” which should be “a timer duration”.
Regarding claim 24: lines 2-3 includes “the executable instructions cause the processor and transceiver to cooperate to provide at least the following further operations:” which should be similar to - the executable instructions further cause the processor and transceiver to cooperate to perform operations comprising: to follow conventional claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: lines 5-6 includes “one or both of a mapping relationship between logical channels (LCHs) on first and second sidelinks and quality of service (QoS) information of each of the LCHs” which is unclear since:
I) lines 5-6 includes “second sidelink” which is not bound to any particular connection between any two UEs and thus whether to interpret as
A) a connection between the first terminal device and the second device at a different times / frequencies,
B) a connection between the first terminal device and another terminal device that is excluded from participating in the relaying / forwarding,
C) a connection between two terminal devices (other than the first terminal device and second device) that do not participate in the relaying / forwarding,
D) a sidelink between two terminal devices among a route with multiple relays (e.g. multi-hop),
E) a connection between the first (source) terminal device and a destination terminal device, or
F) something else, which would introduce new matter / written description issues;
II) the limitation regarding a mapping relationship between logical channels (LCHs) on first and second sidelinks is further unclear as to the precise meaning / intention since [using LCH and/or a logical channel group (LCG) as an example of mapping relationship]:
A) a mapping of LCHs on the first sidelink along with any (arbitrary) second sidelink with/without any LCHs [e.g. A1) sidelink 1 includes LCH1 and LCH2 in LCH group 1 (LCG1) while (arbitrary) sidelink 2 includes LCH3 and LCH4 in LCG2 thus, the mapping relationship is LCG1 and LCG2, or A2) sidelink 1 includes LCH1 and LCH2 in LCG1 while (arbitrary) sidelink 2 does not include any LCHs / LCGs, thus the mapping relationship is LCG1]; or
B) a mapping of the same LCH and/or LCG that is on both sidelink 1 and (arbitrary) sidelink 2 [e.g. B1) sidelink 1 includes LCH1 and (arbitrary) sidelink 2 also includes LCH1 thus, the mapping relationship is LCH1], or B2) sidelink 1 includes LCH1 and (arbitrary) sidelink 2 includes LCH2, and LCG1 includes both LCH1 and LCH2 thus, the mapping relationship is LCG1]; or
C) something else, is the intent.
No further details regarding “second sidelink” as detailed above further exacerbates the indefiniteness. Examination continued on the assumption second sidelink is related to any one of first terminal device, second device, and third communication device, and some type of mapping for LCHs on the first sidelink, and mappings for any LCHs on any sidelink that may be available.
- Further, lines 14-15 includes “a first configuration message”, however, “a first configuration message” has been introduced in line 13 and thus, in view of other issues of the claim, is unclear whether these instances refer to the same message. Examination continued on the assumption both refer to the same message.
- Further, line 22 includes antecedent issues with “the sidelink” since lines 1-2 include “a sidelink between a first terminal device and a second device”, lines 5-6 include “first and second sidelinks”, lines 7-8 includes “the first sidelink is the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device”, and lines 26-27 includes “the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device” and thus, in view of other issues of the claim, it is unclear whether “the sidelink” of line 22 is A) the “sidelink between first terminal device and second device”, B) the “second sidelink”, C) another (arbitrary) sidelink, or D) something else. Examination continued on the assumption line 22 should be the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device.
Regarding claims 3 and 5: the claims, ultimately dependent upon independent claim 1, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claims 9-11: the claims, ultimately dependent upon independent claim 1, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1; further, lines 9-11 includes “wherein each of the mapping relationship between the LCHs and the quality of service information of the LCHs is used by the second device to determine a first configuration message” [i.e. determining requires both QoS and mapping relationship to determine the first configuration message], however, lines 12-13 is contradictory and indicates “determining, by the second device, a first configuration message based on one or both of the mapping relationship between the LCHs and the QoS information” [i.e. determining requires only one of QoS and mapping relationship to determine the first configuration message]. Examination continued on the assumption lines 9-11 also should be similar to - one or both.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16-17: the claims, ultimately dependent upon independent claim 12, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 12.
Regarding claim 18: the claim, ultimately dependent upon independent claim 12, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 12; further, line 12 includes antecedent issues with “the sidelink” while parent claim 12 includes “a sidelink between a first terminal device and a second device” (lines 1-2), “first and second sidelinks” (line 5), “the sidelink” (line 22), and “the sidelink between a first terminal device and a second device” (lines 26-27) and thus, in view of other issues of the claim, it is unclear whether “the sidelink” of line 12 is A) the “sidelink between first terminal device and second device”, B) the “second sidelink”, C) another (arbitrary) sidelink, or something else. Examination continued on the assumption line 22 should be the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device.
Regarding claim 19: the claim, ultimately dependent upon independent claim 12, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 12; further, similar with claim 18, line 3 includes antecedent issues with “the sidelink” while parent claim 12 includes “a sidelink between a first terminal device and a second device” (lines 1-2), “first and second sidelinks” (line 5), “the sidelink” (line 22), and “the sidelink between a first terminal device and a second device” (lines 26-27) and thus, in view of other issues of the claim, it is unclear whether “the sidelink” of line 12 is A) the “sidelink between first terminal device and second device”, B) the “second sidelink”, C) another (arbitrary) sidelink, or something else. Examination continued on the assumption line 22 should be the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device.
Regarding claim 20: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claims 21-24: the claims, ultimately dependent upon independent claim 20, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 20.
In a review of the amendments and disclosure (e.g. Figs. 5a-5c), the examiner respectfully recommends specifying “second sidelink”, and to further specify “third communication device” such as similar to - perform/send/receive x when the third communication device is a network device and perform/send/receive y when the third communication device is a third terminal device.
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) 1, 5, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17, 20, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2021/0298034 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/992,747 and US Provisional Application No. 62/992,611, both filed 3/20/2020) hereinafter He in view of Wei et al. (US 2019/0166640 A1) hereinafter Wei.
Regarding claim 1, He teaches a resource scheduling method (scheduling resources; para. 04-16), wherein there is a sidelink between a first terminal device and a second device (sidelink between remote UE 115-a/h/l [first] and relay UE-b/i/m [second]; para. [223-241, 253-270, 399-414] and Figs. [2, 5, 23]) and a communication connection between the second device and a third communication device (communication link 210 between relay UE 115-b/i/m and base station (BS) 105-a/e [third]; para. [233, 254, 399] and Figs. [2, 5, 23]), and the method comprises: sending, by the first terminal device, to the second device or the third communication device (remote UE transmits scheduling request (SR) to relay UE, SR includes priority of logical channel (LCH) group (LCG) associated with data at remote UE; para. [220-221, 260], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) one or both of a mapping relationship between logical channel (LCHs) on first and second sidelinks (remote UE transmits SR to relay UE [first sidelink 205-a of Fig. 2], SR includes priority of LCG [mapping relationship of LCHs]; para. [220-221, 260], second sidelink 205-b, where no further description of LCH(s) on second sidelink at least suggests first sidelink LCHs includes all LCHs of first and second sidelinks; Fig. 2, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) and quality of service (QoS) information of each of the LCHs (SR includes quality of service (QoS), QoS associated with logical channel priority (LCP) and SR indicates LCHs associated with sidelink resources; para. [185, 388, 395-397], first set [each] of LCHs associated with first range of LCPs; para. [137, 152, 402]), wherein the first sidelink is the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device (sidelink between remote UE 115-a/h/l and relay UE-b/i/m; para. [223-241, 253-270, 399-414] and Figs. [2, 5, 23]), wherein the QoS information is a QoS requirement for service data carried on each of the LCHs (QoS used for differentiation; para. 244, different services include ultra-reliable, low latency, for corresponding voice, video, packet, messaging data; para. [189, 207, 217]), and wherein each of the mapping relationship between the LCHs and the quality of service information of the LCHs is used by the second device (UE communications manager 101 at relay UE receives SR and transmits [determines] indication of sidelink resources based on the SR; para. 222, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or the third communication device (SR received by relay UE 115-d/m from remote UE 115-e/l relayed/forwarded to BS 105-b/e; para. 407-408 and Fig. 23 steps 2330-a to 2330-b, in response to the SR, BS grants [determines] resources for sidelink; para. [187, 230, 393, 396-397] and Figs. [3, 5] steps [305-315-a, 535-545]) to determine a first configuration message (relay UE transmits [determines] indication of sidelink resources based on the SR; para. 222, BS grants [determines] resources for sidelink; para. [187, 230, 393, 396-397] and Figs. [3, 5] steps [305-315-a, 535-545]); receiving, by the first terminal device or the third communication device (remote UE 115-e [first] receives grant 215-a/320a in response to SR; para. [187, 203, 245] and Figs. [2-3], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), a first configuration message sent by the second device in response to sending one or both of the mapping relationship and the QoS information to the second device or the third communication device (remote UE 115-e receives grant 215-a/320-a from relay UE 115-b/d in response to SR; para. [187, 203, 245] and Figs. [2-3], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference, SR includes QoS, QoS associated with LCP and SR indicates LCHs associated with sidelink resources; para. [185, 388, 395-397], first set [each] of LCHs associated with first range of LCPs; para. [137, 152, 402]); determining, by the first terminal device, to send indication information to the second device based on a trigger condition (remote UE 115-h/l receives resource indication triggering a buffer status report (BSR) [sending indication information] based on configured resources / QoS / priority to relay UE 115-i/m; para. [263-267, 403-407] and Figs. [5, 23] steps [550-560, 2315-b-2330-a]) in the first configuration message (resource indication includes configured resources; para. 403 and Fig. 23 step 2315-b); and sending, by the first terminal device, the indication information to the second device (remote UE 115-l sends BSR to relay UE 115-m; para. 412 and Fig. 23 step 2340-a).
While He discloses BSR indicates data has arrived to the buffer and relay UE selecting sidelink resources, He does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication information comprises data volume information of data to be transmitted on the sidelink, wherein the data volume information is used by the second device to obtain a target resource, and wherein the target resource is used by the second device to forward, to the third communication device, data received by the second device from the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wei teaches wherein the indication information comprises data volume information of data to be transmitted on the sidelink (BSR indicates amount of data for access link between UE and relay; para. 125-126), wherein the data volume information is used by the second device to obtain a target resource (relay allocates sidelink resources based on BSR; para. 104), and wherein the target resource is used by the second device to forward, to the third communication device, data received by the second device from the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device (relay receives uplink data from UE on sidelink resource, then transmits [forwards] the uplink data to eNB; para. [112, 115-116] and Figs. 7-8 steps [704, 706, 810, 812]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Wei to the system of He, where He’s improved sidelink scheduling (para. 179) along with Wei’s scheduling of uplink transmission from relay to base station (para. [05, 105]) improves system efficiency by improving scheduling of transmissions between UE, relay, and base station.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
He further teaches wherein after receiving the first configuration message (after grant; para. 263 and Fig. 5 step 550), the method further comprises: determining, by the first terminal device, a second configuration message based on the first configuration message (remote UE transmits [determines] on sidelink based on grant; para. 264-265 and Fig. 5 steps 555-560); and sending, by the first terminal device, the second configuration message to the second device (remote UE transmits indication; para. 265 and Fig. 5 step 560), wherein the second configuration message comprises correspondence between each of the LCHs (indication includes priority of LCG [correspondence between LCHs]; para. 265) and one or more of a logical channel group (LCG) (indication includes priority of LCG [at least suggesting identification of LCG to associate with priority]; para. 265, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), an LCH identifier, a bearer identifier, an LCG identifier (indication includes priority of LCG [at least suggesting LCG ID to associate with priority]; para. 265), a data volume threshold and timer duration.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While He discloses trigger based on unavailability of corresponding configured resources, He does not explicitly disclose wherein the trigger condition is associated with one or more of a logical channel (LCH) identifier, a logical channel Group (LCG) identifier, a bearer identifier, a data volume threshold, and timer duration.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wei teaches wherein the trigger condition is associated with one or more of a logical channel (LCH) identifier, a logical channel Group (LCG) identifier, a bearer identifier, a data volume threshold, and timer duration (BSR triggered based on elapsed time; para. 115 and Fig. 8 step 804, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Wei to the modified system of He and Wei, where He and Wei’s modified system along with Wei’s scheduling of uplink transmission from relay to base station (para. [05, 105]) improves system efficiency by improving scheduling of transmissions between UE, relay, and base station.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
He further teaches wherein before receiving the first configuration message (initially [before first configuration message], remote UE transmits first SR to relay UE; para. 243), the method further comprises: sending, by the first terminal device, first information to the third communication device or the second device (remote UE transmits first SR [first information] to relay UE; para. 243, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), wherein the first information comprises information about a capability of the first terminal device to support sending of the indication information (SR indicate pending BSR [ability to send indication information]; para. 243).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
He further teaches wherein the third communication device is a network device or a third terminal device (BS 105-a/e [third]; para. [233, 254, 399] and Figs. [2, 5, 23]).
Regarding claim 12, He teaches a resource scheduling method (scheduling resources; para. 04-16), wherein there is a sidelink between a first terminal device and a second device (sidelink between remote UE 115-a/h/l [first] and relay UE-b/i/m [second]; para. [223-241, 253-270, 399-414] and Figs. [2, 5, 23]) and a communication connection between the second device and a third communication device (communication link 210 between relay UE 115-b/i/m and base station (BS) 105-a/e [third]; para. [233, 254, 399] and Figs. [2, 5, 23]), and the method comprises: receiving, by the second device (relay UE receives scheduling request (SR); para. [220-221, 260]), one or both of a mapping relationship between logical channel (LCHs) on first and second sidelinks (remote UE transmits SR to relay UE [first sidelink 205-a of Fig. 2], SR includes priority of LCG [mapping relationship of LCHs]; para. [220-221, 260], second sidelink 205-b, where no further description of LCH(s) on second sidelink at least suggests first sidelink LCHs includes all LCHs of first and second sidelinks; Fig. 2, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) and quality of service (QoS) information of each of the LCHs (SR includes quality of service (QoS), QoS associated with logical channel priority (LCP) and SR indicates LCHs associated with sidelink resources; para. [185, 388, 395-397], first set [each] of LCHs associated with first range of LCPs; para. [137, 152, 402]) sent from the first terminal device (remote UE transmits SR to relay UE; para. [220-221, 260]), wherein the QoS information is a QoS requirement for service data carried on each of the LCHs (QoS used for differentiation; para. 244, different services include ultra-reliable, low latency, for corresponding voice, video, packet, messaging data; para. [189, 207, 217]), and wherein each of the mapping relationship between the LCHs and the quality of service information of the LCHs is used by the second device to determine a first configuration message (UE communications manager 101 at relay UE receives SR and transmits [determines] indication of sidelink resources based on the SR [mapping / quality]; para. 222); determining, by the second device, a first configuration message based on one or both of the mapping relationship between the LCHs and the QoS information (UE communications manager 101 at relay UE receives SR and transmits [determines] indication of sidelink resources based on the SR [mapping / quality]; para. 222); sending, by the second device, the first configuration message to the first terminal device (UE communications manager 101 at relay UE receives SR and transmits [determines] indication of sidelink resources based on the SR [mapping / quality]; para. 222), wherein the first configuration message includes a trigger condition used by the first terminal device to determine whether to send indication information to the second device (grant includes resource indication used for triggering buffer status report (BSR) at remote UE; para. [263-267, 403-407] and Figs. [5, 23] steps [550-560, 2315-b-2330-a]); receiving, by the second device, the indication information sent by the first terminal device (relay UE 115-m receives BSR from remote UE 115-l; para. 412 and Fig. 23 step 2340-a).
While He discloses BSR indicates data has arrived to the buffer and relay UE selecting sidelink resources, He does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication information comprises data volume information of data to be transmitted on the sidelink; and obtaining, by the second device, a target resource based on the data volume information of the data to be transmitted, wherein the target resource is used by the second device to forward, to the third communication device, data received by the second device from the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wei teaches wherein the indication information comprises data volume information of data to be transmitted on the sidelink (BSR indicates amount of data for access link between UE and relay; para. 125-126); and obtaining, by the second device, a target resource based on the data volume information of the data to be transmitted (relay allocates sidelink resources based on BSR; para. 104), wherein the target resource is used by the second device to forward, to the third communication device, data received by the second device from the sidelink between the first terminal device and the second device (relay receives uplink data from UE on sidelink resource, then transmits [forwards] the uplink data to eNB; para. [112, 115-116] and Figs. 7-8 steps [704, 706, 810, 812]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Wei to the system of He, where He’s improved sidelink scheduling (para. 179) along with Wei’s scheduling of uplink transmission from relay to base station (para. [05, 105]) improves system efficiency by improving scheduling of transmissions between UE, relay, and base station.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 12.
He further teaches wherein before receiving, by the second device, the indication information sent by the first terminal device (prior to transmitting SR by remote UE to relay UE, receiving control signaling by relay UE; para. [256-258, ] and Figs. [5, 23] steps [515, ]), the method further comprises: receiving, by the second device, a second configuration message sent by one of the first terminal device (relay UE receiving SR including a portion of BS configured resources from the remote UE; para. 407, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) and the third communication device (receiving control signaling / resource indication by relay UE from BS; para. [256-258, 403] and Figs. [5, 23] steps [515, 2315-a]), wherein the second configuration message comprises one or more of a correspondence between each of the LCHs and one or more of a logical channel group (LCG), an LCH identifier (SR from remote UE includes logical channel priority (LCP) [at least suggesting an LCH identifier to associate with priority]; para. 407), a bearer identifier, an LCG identifier (control signaling includes priority of LCG [at least suggesting an LCG identifier to associate LCG and priority]; para. 255, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), a data volume threshold, and timer duration.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 13.
He further teaches wherein determining the first configuration message is based on the second configuration message (UE communications manager 101 at relay UE transmits [determines] indication of sidelink resources configured by the BS [second configuration message]; para. 222), wherein the first configuration message comprises one or more of the correspondence between each of the LCHs and one or more of a LCG, an LCH identifier, a bearer identifier, an LCG identifier (control signaling includes priority of LCG [at least suggesting an LCG identifier to associate LCG and priority]; para. 255, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), a data volume threshold, and timer duration.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 13.
He further teaches wherein receiving the second configuration message comprises receiving the second configuration message sent by the first terminal device (relay UE receiving SR including a portion of BS configured resources from the remote UE; para. 407).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 13.
He further teaches wherein receiving the second configuration message comprises receiving the second configuration message sent by the third communication device (receiving control signaling / resource indication by relay UE from BS; para. [256-258, 403] and Figs. [5, 23] steps [515, 2315-a]).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including transceiver (transceiver 915; para. 306 and Fig. 9), one or more processors and memory storing computer executable instructions executed (processor 935, memory 925, code 930; para. 306 and Fig. 9, instruction executed; para. 311-313).
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Claim(s) 3 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wei, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0053580 A1) hereinafter Lu.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
He further teaches wherein the trigger condition comprising the first configuration message comprises a correspondence between each of the LCHs (signaling from relay includes LCG [correspondence between LCHs]; para. 257 and Fig. 5 step 520).
The combination of He and Wei does not explicitly disclose and one or more of a logical channel group (LCG), an LCH identifier, a bearer identifier, an LCG identifier, a data volume threshold and timer duration.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lu further teaches the first configuration message comprises one or more of a logical channel group (LCG), an LCH identifier (first terminal device sends D2D connection situation to scheduler [second device], situation includes LCH identifier; para. [31, 43-44] and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), a bearer identifier, an LCG identifier, a data volume threshold and timer duration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Lu to the modified system of He and Wei, where He and Wei’s modified system along with Lu’s internet of vehicles (IoV) (para. 18-22) improves sidelink transmission in vehicle systems by enabling higher spectral efficiency and lower transmission latency.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wei, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0394677 A1) hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of He and Wei does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication information further comprises one or more of load status information of a physical channel on the sidelink, transmission time information corresponding to the to-be-transmitted data, and a delay budget corresponding to the to-be-transmitted data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches wherein the indication information further comprises one or more of load status information of a physical channel on the sidelink, transmission time information corresponding to the to-be-transmitted data, and a delay budget corresponding to the to-be-transmitted data (BSR includes delay budget of sidelink traffic [to-be-transmitted]; para. 93, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Wu to the modified system of He and Wei, where He and Wei’s modified system along with Wu’s advance V2X including platooning (para. [03-04, 71]) improves user experience by ensuring safe and efficient transport.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 12.
The combination of He and Wei does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication information further comprises one or more of load status information of a physical channel on the sidelink, transmission time information corresponding to the data to be transmitted, and a delay budget corresponding to the data to be transmitted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches wherein the indication information further comprises one or more of load status information of a physical channel on the sidelink, transmission time information corresponding to the data to be transmitted, and a delay budget corresponding to the data to be transmitted (BSR includes delay budget of sidelink traffic [to-be-transmitted]; para. 93, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Wu to the modified system of He and Wei, where He and Wei’s modified system along with Wu’s advance V2X including platooning (para. [03-04, 71]) improves user experience by ensuring safe and efficient transport.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wei, and further in view of Baek et al. (US 2023/0103455 A1) hereinafter Baek.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of He and Wei teaches the limitation of previous claim 12.
While the combination of He and Wei discloses sending BSR, the combination of He and Wei does not explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the target resource based on the data volume information of the data to be transmitted comprises: sending a pre-emptive buffer status report to the third communication device based on the data volume information of the to-be-transmitted data, wherein the pre-emptive buffer status report comprises the data volume information of the data to be transmitted, wherein the data volume information of the data to be transmitted is used by the third communication device to allocate a target resource to the second device, and wherein the target resource is used to forward, to the third communication device, the data to be transmitted received by the second device from the sidelink.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Baek teaches wherein obtaining the target resource based on the data volume information of the data to be transmitted comprises: sending a pre-emptive buffer status report to the third communication device based on the data volume information of the to-be-transmitted data (pre-emptive BSR transmitted to second IAB node [third communication device] based on buffer status of terminal [to-be-transmitted data]; para. 212 and Fig. 18 step 1810-1830), wherein the pre-emptive buffer status report comprises the data volume information of the data to be transmitted (pre-emptive BSR transmitted to second IAB node [third communication device] based on buffer status of terminal [to-be-transmitted data]; para. 212 and Fig. 18 steps 1810-1830), wherein the data volume information of the data to be transmitted is used by the third communication device to allocate a target resource to the second device (second IAB node [third communication device] uses pre-emptive BSR to allocate resources for first IAB [second device]; para. 212 and Fig. 18 steps [1830, 1860]), and wherein the target resource is used to forward, to the third communication device, the data to be transmitted received by the second device from the sidelink (data from terminal [first device] to first IAB [second device] forwarded to second IAB [third communication device] using allocated resources; para. 121 and Fig. 18 steps [1845, 1865]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Baek to the modified system of He and Wei, where He and Wei’s modified system along with Baek’s multi-hop IAB (para. 11) improves user experience by improving service area and increasing traffic capacity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adjakple et al. (US 2022/0132603 A1) discloses an apparatus, system, method, and computer-readable medium for connection-oriented Vehicle-to-X (VtX) communication in 5G.
Lee et al. (US 2021/0410114 A1) discloses activation and deactivation for pool of resources.
Chen et al. (US 2022/0015070 A1) discloses resource configuration and selection for device-to-device links.
Lin (US 2021/0105743 A1) discloses enhancement of logical channel prioritization for sidelink transmission.
Lin (US 2021/0153169 A1) discloses a method to handle joint restriction of transmission resource and data QoS requirement.
US Provisional Application Nos. 62/992,611 and 62/992,747 (He), both filed 3/20/2020, are included in the instant OA.
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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 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/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights