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 .
Claims 1-10 and 15-18 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 1, 6 and 15
The language “A method performed by a device, the method comprising: determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information; in response to the determining, selecting a plurality of relays; and transmitting the information to a relay device of the plurality of relays the information indicating that the plurality of relays is being used, the information indicating that the plurality of relays is being used” in claim 1 was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim requires “determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information indicating that the plurality of relays is being used”. However, the plurality of relays are selected in response to the determining step. Therefore, the information indicating that the plurality of relays is being used is not known in the determining step of line 2. The original disclosure including paragraphs [0004] and [0070]-[0077] of the specification recited in the Remarks do not describe the language in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the language constitutes new matter.
Independent claims 6 and 15 have similar language and are rejected similarly as independent claim 1.
In reference to claims 2-5, 8-10, and 16-18
Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 16-18 are rejected because they depend on a rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10 and 15-18 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.
In reference to claim 1, 6 and 15
The language “A method performed by a device, the method comprising: determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information; in response to the determining, selecting a plurality of relays; and transmitting the information to a relay device of the plurality of relays the information indicating that the plurality of relays is being used, the information indicating that the plurality of relays is being used” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite. The claim requires “determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information indicating that the plurality of relays is being used”. However, the plurality of relays are selected in response to the determining step. Therefore, the information indicating that the plurality of relays is being used is not known in the determining step of line 2, rendering the claim indefinite and the scope of the claim unclear.
Independent claims 6 and 15 have similar language and are rejected similarly as independent claim 1.
In reference to claims 2-5, 8-10, and 16-18
Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 16-18 are rejected because they depend on a rejected parent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 11974208 pertains to a current relay node receiving a data packet, a message header of the data packet comprising an address of a destination node of the data packet; and the current relay node determining, according to the address of the destination node, whether to forward the data packet. The routing method and communication node of the embodiment of the present application are beneficial in improving the performance of a relay network. See col. 11 lines 1-57
US 10630661 pertains to a method of wireless communication at a transmitting wireless device includes generating a first Message Authentication Code (MAC) for a data packet based at least in part on a first security key used to communicate with a receiving wireless device; generating a second MAC for the data packet based at least in part on a second security key used to communicate with a relay user equipment (UE), in which the relay UE is included in a data routing path between the transmitting wireless device and the receiving wireless device; and transmitting the data packet to the relay UE with at least the first MAC and the second MAC. See Fig. 6
US 2007/0264933 pertains to scanning of neighboring nodes and an upper node, and transmitting a scanning result report message to a base station (BS). The node change request message requests the relay station that is connected to a new upper node to change from the upper node to the new upper node upon receipt of a node change request message from the base station. A node change acknowledgement (ACK) message is transmitted to the base station upon receipt of the node change request message from the base station. See Fig. 5
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights