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.
Applicant amended representative claim 1 and all independent claims to recite “a request for the network entity to automatically perform local routing of the communication received or transmitted on a particular resource (see [0035] request automatically establishes the BS based local routing communication link, therefore this is the network entity-BS )”
Here, regarding amendment including the limitation to ‘automatically perform’, new grounds of rejection Pan et al. (CN 103546936 A)(Machine Translation) was disclosed.
Specifically, Pan discloses a request for the network entity to automatically perform local routing of the communication received or transmitted on a particular resource (see [0035] request automatically establishes the BS based local routing communication link, therefore this is the network entity-BS ).
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) 1-3, 7-8, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Pan et al. (CN 103546936 A)(Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1 and 29, Kuo discloses the user equipment (UE) and method for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more antenna (see antenna in fig. 1); and
a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (see store [0505]) for the processor circuitry (see processor [0033]), coupled to the memory, configured to), the processing system configured to:
(and/or)
a memory (see memory [0043]); and 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 Pan discloses a request (see request, [0035]) for the network entity (see BS, [0035]) to automatically (see [0035] “request of automatically establishers”) perform local routing (see [0035], local routing) of the communication received or transmitted on a particular resource.
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 Pan. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 2, Kuo in view of Pan 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 in view of Pan 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 7, Kuo in view of Pan discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to receive information indicating a configuration for the indication (see configuration and indication [0395]).
Regarding claim 8, Kuo in view of Pan 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”).
Claim(s) 12-13, 19-21, 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 Pan.
Regarding claims 12 & 30, network entity for wireless communication, comprising:
One or more antenna (see fig. 1, note antennas);
A processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code for the processor circuitry (see processor and memory [0033]) , the processing system configured to:
receive a communication associated with a source UE (see [0490], relay UE), the communication 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 expressly disclose however Pan discloses a request for the network entity to automatically perform local routing of the communication received or transmitted on a particular resource (see [0035] request automatically establishes the BS based local routing communication link, therefore this is the network entity-BS );
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 Pan. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 13, Kuo in view of Liu in view Pan 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 view of Pan 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 view Pan discloses the network entity of claim 12, wherein the indication comprises a medium access control (MAC) layer indication (see MAC [0223]).
Regarding claim 21, Kuo in view of Liu in view in Pan discloses the network entity of claim 12, wherein the indication comprises a resource on which the communication is transmitted (see RRC [0044]).
Regarding claim 25, Kuo in view of Liu in view Pan discloses the network entity of claim 12, wherein the processing system is further configured to transmit information indicating a configuration for the indication (see configuration and indication [0395]).
Regarding claim 27, Kuo in view of Liu discloses the network entity of claim 12,
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 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 Pan in further view of Grau et al. (US 2024/0064819 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kuo in view of Liu and Pan 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 and Liu/Pan 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 Pan discloses 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 and Liu/Pan 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 Pan discloses the network entity of claim 13,
Grau best discloses wherein to provide the communication, the processing system is further 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 and Liu/Pan 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 Pan discloses 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 and Liu/Pan 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 Pan discloses 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 and Liu/Pan 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 Pan in further view of Hong et al. (US 2024/0365346 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Kuo in view of Liu and Pan discloses the network entity of claim 12, They do not specifically disclose however Hong discloses wherein the processing system isfurther 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 and Liu 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 and Pan discloses the network entity of claim 12, They do not specifically disclose however Hong discloses wherein the processing system is 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 Pan in further view Liu et al. (US 2017/0214622 A1) in further view of Grau et al. (US 2024/0064819 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kuo and Pan discloses the UE of claim 4, they do not expressly disclose what Grau discloses wherein the processing system isfurther configured to receive a configured grant indicating the resource (see grant and indicator [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 Grau. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 6, Kuo and Pan discloses the UE of claim 4, they do not expressly disclose what Grau discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to receive a configuration of a resource pool (see [0252] see resource pool); and transmit the indication on a resource included in the resource pool (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 and Liu with that of Grau. 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 Pan in further view of Park et al. (US 2022/0417976 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 1, Kuo/Pan 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 with that of Park. Doing so will conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 11, Kuo discloses the UE of claim 1, Kuo/Pan 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 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 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, the processing system is further 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 31-34 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
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 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