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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on September 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0081021) in view of Schoenberg et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0072373).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises: sending, by a first device [fig. 2. terminal], a first message to a second device [fig. 2. Relay device] (see at least paragraph 126 and fig. 5 [step 1]); and starting, by the first device, to listen to a response message of the first message from a third device at a start point of a listening time window (see at least paragraph 144-146 and 181 and fig. 6 [616]).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose starting, by the first device, to listen to a response message directly from a third device at a start point of a listening time window, the response message responsive to the first message, the third device different from the first device and the second device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schoenberg et al discloses starting, by the first device, to listen to a response message directly from a third device at a start point of a listening time window, the response message responsive to the first message (see at least paragraph 125 and fig. 6 [612, listening window, 635 response message from device 606]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Schoenberg et al into the system of Yu, for purpose of using listening window for receiving response message, wherein the listening window starts after broadcast message is complete.
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses determining, by the first device, the start point based on a second message from the second device; or determining, by the first device, the start point based on a first resource used to send the first message; or determining, by the first device, the start point based on a second resource associated with a first resource used by the first device to send the first message, wherein the second resource is used by the second device to send the first message to the third device (see at least paragraphs 190-192 and fig. 6 [615-616]).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses receiving, by the first device, an association relationship that is between the first resource and the second resource and that is configured by the second device or the third device (see at least paragraphs 190-192 and fig. 6 [615-616]).
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses the determining the start point based on the first resource used to send the first message comprises: determining, by the first device, the start point based on a time domain offset and the first resource (see at least paragraphs 190-192 and fig. 6 [615-616]).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses receiving, by the first device, the time domain offset configured by the second device or the third device (see at least paragraph 178).
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses sending, by the first device, priority indication information to the second device, wherein the priority indication information indicates a priority of the first message (see at least paragraph 126).
Regarding claim 7, Yu discloses the sending the first message comprises: sending, by the first device, the first message to the second device on a first resource corresponding to a priority of the first message (see at least paragraph 126).
Regarding claim 8, Yu discloses the starting to listen to the response message of the first message from a third device at a start point of listening comprises is performed in response to: a priority of the first message being higher than or equal to a specified priority, or the first device determines determining that a priority identifier of the first message is a high priority (see at least paragraph 178).
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses a communication apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises: a transmitter, configured to send a first message to a second device [fig. 2. Relay device] (see at least paragraph 126 and fig. 5 [step 1]); and a receiver, configured to start to listen to a response message of the first message from a third device at a start point of a listening time window (see at least paragraph 144-146 and 181 and fig. 6 [616]).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose a processor configured to determine the start point based on: a first resource used by the transmitter to send the first message to the second device; or a second resource associated with the first resource used by the transmitter to send the first message to the second device, wherein the second resource is used by the second device to forward the first message to the third device which is different from the first device and the second device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schoenberg et al discloses a processor configured to determine the start point based on: a first resource used by the transmitter to send the first message to the second device; or a second resource associated with the first resource used by the transmitter to send the first message to the second device, wherein the second resource is used by the second device to forward the first message to the third device which is different from the first device and the second device (see at least paragraph 109 beacon 602 broadcast message). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Schoenberg et al into the system of Yu, for purpose of using listening window for receiving response message, wherein the listening window starts after broadcast message is complete.
Regarding claim 12, Schoenberg et al discloses the receiver is configured to listen to the response message directly from the third device, and the response message is responsive to the first message forwarded from the second device to the third device (see at least paragraph 125 and fig. 6 [612, listening window, 635 response message from device 606]). Same motivation as claim 11.
Regarding claims 13-18, see above rejection of claims 3-8.
Regarding claim 19, Yu discloses the first device does not listen to the response message between the sending the first message and the start point of the listening time window; and the response message is responsive to the first message forwarded from the second device to the third device (see at least paragraph 126).
Regarding claim 20, Yu discloses the receiver is configured to not listen to the response message after sending the first message to the second device and before the start point of the listening time window (see at least paragraph 126).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0081021) in view of Tao (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0245227).
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises: receiving, by a second device, a first message from a first device [fig. 2. Relay device] (see at least paragraph 126 and fig. 5 [step 1]); sending, by the second device, the first message to a third device (see at least paragraph 178); and sending, by the second device, a second message to the first device (see at least paragraph 178), wherein the second message indicates information associated with a start point of a listening time window, and the start point of the listening time window is a point at which the first device starts to listen to a response message of the first message from the third device (see at least paragraph 144-146 and 181 and fig. 6 [616]).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose forwarding, by the second device, the first message to a third device different from the first device and the second device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tao discloses forwarding, by the second device, the first message to a third device different from the first device and the second device (see at least paragraph 218 and fig. 7 [S710], discloses that forwarding request frame from relay device to base station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Tao into the system of Yu, for purpose of to set up relay device between a terminal and base station and to establish connection between the terminal and the base station through the relay device.
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses the second message indicates at least one of: a time domain offset for determining the start point of the listening time window, or a reference point for determining the start point of the listening time window (see at least paragraph 178).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on September 30, 2025, with respect to claims 1, 9 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment. See the above rejection of claims 1-20 for the relevant citations found in Yu, Schoenberg et al and Tao disclosing the limitations.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642