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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-34 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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) 1-4, 7-9, 29 & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 2024/0015818 A1) view of Bhamri et al. (US 2021/0377979 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 29, Kuo discloses the user equipment (UE) and method for wireless communication, comprising: a memory (see memory [0043]); and one or more processors (see processor [0033]), coupled to the memory, configured to: transmit, to a network entity, a communication associated with an indication that the communication is associated with a proximity service; and communicate based at least in part on the proximity service (see [0490], “to the 5G ProSe layer-3 UE-to-network relay UE to indicate the end-to-end QoS requirements for the traffic transmission between 5G ProSe layer-3 remote UE and the network”);
Kuo does not specifically disclose however Bhamri discloses wherein the indication comprises a resource, scheduled by a received configured grant (see configured grant [0248]), on which the communication is transmitted (received on therefore transmitted [0248]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Bhamri with that of Kuo. Doing so would conform to well known conventions.
Regarding claim 2, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the indication comprises a packet type of the communication (see [0093], “QoS rule is for UL packets from the 5G ProSe Layer-3 Remote UE at Uu interface”).
Regarding claim 3, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the indication comprises a medium access control or radio resource control (see RRC [0028]) layer indication (see [0222], “ Type, the Remote UE info is Remote UE MAC address which is detected by the 5G ProSe Layer-3 UE-to-Network Relay”).
Regarding claim 4, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the indication comprises a resource on which the communication is transmitted (see transmission resource [0448]).
Regarding claim 7, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive information indicating a configuration for the indication (see configuration and indication [0395]).
Regarding claim 8, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 7, wherein the information indicating the configuration indicates at least one of: whether the network entity is a regenerative satellite or a transparent satellite, whether the network entity includes a central unit, whether local routing is supported for the proximity service, or a type of the local routing (see [0140], “indicates the support of IPv6 routing”).
Regarding claim 9, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the indication includes a request for the network entity to perform local routing of the communication (see [0124], “Link-Local IPv6 Address: a link-local IPv6 address”).
Regarding claim 31, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit the indication separately from the communication to indicate that the resource associated with the communication is for the proximity service (see [0227], “individual 5G ProSe Layer-3 Remote”).
Claim(s) 12-13, 19-20, 25, 27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0214622 A1) in further view of Bhamri et al. (US 2021/0377979 A1).
Regarding claims 12 & 30, network entity for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: receive a communication associated with a source UE (see [0490], relay UE), the communicating being associated with an indication that the communication is associated with a proximity service (see “Prose” and “indicate” in [0490]);
Kuo does not specifically disclose however Liu discloses to provide the communication for a destination UE, wherein a route for the communication to the destination UE excludes a core network or an application server based at least in part on the indication (see claim 4, “wherein the determining the routing path is implemented without the routing of the communication packet via the core network device is in response to the femtocell access point device receiving timing data corresponding to nodes of the communication framework excluding operator nodes of core network devices associated with the network operator core identity.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo with that of Liu. Doing so will conform to well known standards in the field of invention;
Kuo and Liu do not specifically disclose however Bhamri discloses wherein the indication comprises a resource, scheduled by a received configured grant (see configured grant [0248]), on which the communication is transmitted (received on therefore transmitted [0248]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Bhamri with that of Kuo. Doing so would conform to well known conventions.
Regarding claim 13, Kuo in view of Liu in further view of Bhamri discloses the network entity of claim 12, Kuo does not disclose however Liu discloses wherein the network entity comprises a satellite (see satellite, [0048]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo with that of Liu. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 19, Kuo in view of Liu in further view of Bhamri discloses the network entity of claim 12, wherein the indication comprises a packet type of the communication (see packet [0093]).
Regarding claim 20, Kuo in view of Liu in further view of Bhamri discloses the network entity of claim 12, wherein the indication comprises a medium access control (MAC) layer indication (see MAC [0223]).
Regarding claim 25, Kuo in view of Liu in further view of Bhamri discloses the network entity of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit information indicating a configuration for the indication (see configuration and indication [0395]).
Regarding claim 27, Kuo in view of Liu in further view of Bhamri discloses the network entity of claim 12, wherein the indication includes a request for the network entity to perform local routing of the communication (see “link-local” [0124]),
Kuo does not specifically disclose however Liu discloses wherein the route for the communication to the destination UE excludes the core network or the application server in accordance with the request(see claim 4, “wherein the determining the routing path is implemented without the routing of the communication packet via the core network device is in response to the femtocell access point device receiving timing data corresponding to nodes of the communication framework excluding operator nodes of core network devices associated with the network operator core identity.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo with that of Liu. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Claim(s) 14- 18 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0214622 A1) in further view Bhamri in further view of Grau et al. (US 2024/0064819 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kuo in view of Liu discloses the network entity of claim 13,
Grau best discloses wherein the satellite (see satellite [0069]) includes a distributed unit (see distributed unit [0069]), and wherein providing the communication for the destination UE comprises providing the communication via a service link downlink of the satellite (see downlink [0075]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo/Liu/Bhamri with that of Grau. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 15, Kuo in view of Liu and Bhamri disclose the network entity of claim 13,
Grau best discloses wherein the satellite includes a central unit (SEE SATELLITE AND CENTRAL UNIT [0103]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo/Liu/Bhamri with that of Grau. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 16, Kuo in view of Liu and Bhamri disclose the network entity of claim 13,
Grau best discloses wherein the one or more processors, to provide the communication, are configured to provide the communication on a downlink beam (see downlink is related to beam from satellite, [0020]) of the source UE (see downlink [0093]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo, Liu and Bhamri with that of Grau. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 17, Kuo in view of Liu and Bhamri disclose the network entity of claim 12,
Grau best discloses wherein the network entity comprises a gateway (see gateway [0014]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo, Lui and Bhamri with that of Grau. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 18, Kuo in view of Liu and Bhamri disclose the network entity of claim 17,
Grau best discloses wherein receiving the communication further comprises receiving the communication on a feeder link (see feeder link [0019]), and wherein providing the communication further comprises providing the communication on the feeder link (see feeder link [0019]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo, Liu and Bhamri with that of Grau. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 26, Kuo in view of Liu and Bhamri disclose the network entity of claim 25,
Grau best discloses wherein the information indicating the configuration indicates at least one of: whether the network entity is a regenerative satellite or a transparent satellite, whether the network entity includes a central unit (see CentRAL Unit [0069]), whether local routing is supported for the proximity service, or a type of the local routing;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo, Liu and Bhamri with that of Grau. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Claim(s) 22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0214622 A1) in further view of Bhamri in further view of Hong et al. (US 2024/0365346 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Kuo in view of Liu discloses the network entity of claim 21,
Kuo, Luo and Bhamri do not specifically disclose however Hong discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit a configuration of a resource pool including the resource (see [0252] see resource pool), wherein the resource pool is for transmission of the indication (see [0252] see resource pool);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo, Liu and Bhamri with that of Hong. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 24, Kuo in view of Liu discloses the network entity of claim 12,
Kuo, Luo and Bhamri do not specifically disclose however Hong discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, for the destination UE, a configured grant for reception of the communication (see grant [0252]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo and Liu with that of Hong. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Bhamri in further view of Hong et al. (US 2022/0322342 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 4, Kuo does not expressly disclose what Grau discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a configuration (see configuration [0122]) of a resource pool (see [0122] see resource pool); and transmit the indication on a resource included in the resource pool (see [0139] see resource pool);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo and Liu with that of Hongi. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Bhamri in further view of Park et al. (US 2022/0417976 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kuo in view of Bhamri discloses the UE of claim 1, Kuo does not expressly disclose however Park discloses wherein the communication indicates a packet delay budget of the communication (see QOS indicator (PQI) may include “packet delay budget”, [0302]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo and Bhamri with that of Park. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 11, Kuo in view of Bhamri discloses the UE of claim 1, Kuo does not expressly disclose however Park discloses wherein the indication comprises a buffer status request for a resource for the communication (see [0218] “indicator indicating a buffer status”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo/Bhamri with that of Park. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0214622 A1) in view of Bhamri in further view of Park et al. (US 2022/0417976 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Kuo in view of Liu discloses the network entity of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors, to provide the communication, are configured to provide the communication in accordance with a configured delay (see delay [0302]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuo and Liu with that of Park. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-34 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights