DETAILED ACTION
RCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 03/24/26.
Independent claims have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 17, 18, 20-22, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hessler et al. (US 2018/0184359, “Hessler”).
Regarding claim 1, Hessler discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a node, comprising:
- receiving a first control channel associated with a multiple relay based communication, a payload of the first control channel carrying a first identifier of the node, a second identifier of a target node of the payload, and a third identifier of a user equipment associated with the payload, wherein the target node is in communication with the user equipment (See 701 Fig.7c and ¶.105, the first wireless node 311 receives a payload data D1 originating from the second wireless node 322 and comprising an indication of a multi-hop path 331 to the second wireless node 322. The indication may comprise identities of the wireless nodes in the multi-hop network, such as an identity ID2 of the relaying wireless node 312 and an identity ID3 of the second wireless node 322. The first wireless node 311 may use the indication of the multi-hop path 331 to route a future payload data through the multi-hop path 331 to the second wireless node 322.
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
156
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
- identifying, based at least in part on the first identifier and the second identifier, whether the target node of the payload is the node or another node (See ¶.67, the first wireless node 311 wants to communicate with the second wireless node 322, which may also be referred to as a target wireless node); and
- decoding the payload based at least in part on identifying that the node is target node (See ¶.166, the first wireless node 311 decodes to extract the data that received from 312 and to do forwarding), or transmitting a second control channel toward the target node based at least in part on identifying that the other node is the target node, wherein the second control channel carries the payload (See 705 Fig.7c and ¶.117, the first network node 311 transmits an assignment As0, e.g. on a control channel such as PCCH, to the relaying wireless node 312. The assignment As0 relates to the first payload data B0 which is to be transmitted to the relaying wireless node 312. The relaying wireless node 312 may use the assignment As0 to decode the indicator A1 below in actions 706, 902;
PNG
media_image2.png
91
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
),
- and the payload includes an updated node identifier of the target node based at least in part on the second identifier and the third identifier (See 705-707 Fig.7c and ¶.118,
PNG
media_image3.png
215
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0118] As mentioned above the first wireless node 311 transmits the first payload data B0 to the relaying wireless node 312. The first payload data B0 comprises the second payload data B1 intended for the second wireless node 322 and the indicator A1. The indicator A1 indicates to the relaying wireless node 312 how to relay the second payload data B1, and comprises parameters related to radio transmission of the second payload data B1).
Regarding claim 2, Hessler discloses “receiving a grant for a resource associated with the second control channel, wherein the second control channel is transmitted on the resource of the grant (See ¶.133, payload data B1 are comprised in the indicator A1, e.g. implemented as an UL-grant or a DL assignment on PDCCH; See ¶.173, examples of PCCH are PDCCH and ePDCCH. The relaying wireless node further constructs a DMRS-based data transmission granted on ePDCCH, for the assigned resources).”
Regarding claim 3, Hessler discloses “the grant is one of: a dynamic grant, or a configured grant (See ¶.10, uplink grant sent from the base station).”
Regarding claim 5, Hessler discloses “the payload includes a node identifier of one or more nodes on a path between a source of the payload and the target node, wherein the node identifier includes the first identifier (See 705 Fig.7c, the payload B0 includes its own ID1 and the target node ID3).”
Regarding claim 6, Hessler discloses “the node identifier is configured as associated with the path or the one or more nodes (See Fig.7c, the path and/or nodes).”
Regarding claim 7, Hessler discloses “removing a destination field that includes the node identifier from the payload for transmission via the second control channel; and adding, to the payload, the updated node identifier for transmission via the second control channel (See 707 Fig.7c, add ID2 to B1; See 707 Fig.7c, the transmit B1 includes only ID1 & ID2 by deleting ID3, wherein ID2 the third identifier).”
Regarding claim 9, Hessler discloses “the payload includes a link identifier of a path between a source of the payload and the target node (See Fig.1 and ¶.105, UE ID; See ¶.24, the relay node further needs prior knowledge about the radio link that corresponds to the next node or device with an IP-address or to a device with the IP-address in a routing table located in the relay node. The routing table may be obtained for example by setting up radio links to all available nodes; See ¶.105-106, multi-hop path; See ¶.126, indication for multi-hop path).”
Regarding claim 10, Hessler disclose “transmitting the second control channel with an identifier of a next node on the path based at least in part on the link identifier (See ¶.91, the indicator A1 comprises one or more identities ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4 of wireless nodes; See ¶.24, the relay node further needs prior knowledge about the radio link that corresponds to the next node or device with an IP-address or to a device with the IP-address in a routing table located in the relay node. The routing table may be obtained for example by setting up radio links to all available nodes; Examiner’s Note: applicant’s specification defines in ¶.[0062] that “UE identifier would be part of the link ID preconfigured for each route between the base station and the UE).”
Regarding claim 11, Hessler discloses “the payload includes a link identifier of a path between a source of the payload and a user equipment that is a destination of the payload (See ¶.24, the relay node further needs prior knowledge about the radio link that corresponds to the next node or device with an IP-address or to a device with the IP-address in a routing table located in the relay node. The routing table may be obtained for example by setting up radio links to all available nodes; See 705 Fig.7c, the payload B0 includes its ID1 and the target node ID3).”
Regarding claim 17, Hessler discloses “the first identifier is associated with each node of a plurality of nodes on a path between a source of the payload and the target node (See 705 Fig.7c, the payload B0 includes its ID1 and the target node ID3).”
Regarding claim 18, Hessler discloses “transmitting the second control channel using a differentiation technique such that a recipient node of the plurality of nodes can determine whether the second control channel is destined for the recipient node (See ¶.173, the relaying wireless node 312 constructs a control message to be sent on a control channel within a search space for the receiver. The receiver will perform a number of decoding attempts for each of the candidates of the search space).”
Regarding claim 20, Hessler discloses “the target node is a last node on the path before the user equipment (See 322 Fig.7c, UE with ID3).”
Regarding claim 21, it is a method claim performed by a base station corresponding to the method claim performed by a node and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 22, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 26, it is a node claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitation “one or more memories and processors (See Fig.19, a memory and a processor)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 27, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 29, it is a base station claim corresponding to the method claim 21, except the limitation “one or more memories and processors (See Fig.18, a memory and a processor)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 30, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 31, Hessler discloses “wherein the payload includes a node identifier of one or more nodes on a path between a source of the payload and the target node, and wherein the node identifier includes the first identifier (See Fig.7c).”
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.
Claims 4, 12-16, 23-25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hessler in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0169956, “Sun”).
Regarding claim 4, Hessler discloses physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (See ¶.133), but does not explicitly disclose what Sun discloses “receiving information indicating a downlink control information (DCI) type of the first control channel, wherein receiving the first control channel is based at least in part on the DCI type (Sun, See ¶.102, PDCCH includes DCI format; See ¶.179, generating information bits in the DCI carried by the PDCCH in which the content carried in the information bit includes an identity of the first UE).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “receiving information indicating a downlink control information (DCI) type of the first control channel, wherein receiving the first control channel is based at least in part on the DCI type” as taught by Sun into the system of Hessler, so that it provides a way of obtaining DL or UL scheduling information carried by DCI (Sun, See ¶.31).
Regarding claim 12, Hessler does not explicitly disclose what Sun discloses “the identifier associated with the first control channel is a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) (Sun, See ¶.179, an identity of the first UE, an identity of the second UE, RNTI of the first UE, RNTI of the second UE, and identification information of a mapping relationship between the first UE and the second UE).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the identifier associated with the first control channel is a RNTI” as taught by Sun into the system of Hessler, so that it provides a way of having identification information of a mapping relationship between the first UE and the second UE (Sun, See ¶.179).
Regarding claim 13, Hessler and Sun disclose “transmitting the second control channel to a child node of the node on a path to the target node based at least in part on a mapping between the RNTI and the child node (Hessler, See Fig.7a-b and ¶.94, remapping for forwarding to downlink; Sun, See ¶.179, an identity of the first UE, an identity of the second UE, RNTI of the first UE, RNTI of the second UE, and identification information of a mapping relationship between the first UE and the second UE).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Hessler and Sun disclose “the mapping indicates an identifier for the second control channel associated with routing the payload to the target node (See 709 & 710 Fig.7c, the relay node 312 transmits/routes B1 including ID1 and ID2 to the destination node 322; See Fig.12, routing information; Sun, See ¶.179, an identity of the first UE, an identity of the second UE, RNTI of the first UE, RNTI of the second UE, and identification information of a mapping relationship between the first UE and the second UE).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, Hessler discloses “the identifier for the second control channel corresponds to a plurality of nodes, including the child node, on the path to the target node, and wherein the identifier for the second control channel is the same irrespective of an upstream route of the second control channel (See 708-710 Fig.7c, path to the target node; See 13-1 & 1302 Fig.13, direct upstream routing using the stored route).”
Regarding claim 16, Hessler discloses “transmitting the second control channel to a child node on a path to the target node is based at least in part on an identifier of the child node or an identifier of the path associated with the first control channel (See 709-710 Fig.7c, relaying to the target node using identifiers).”
Regarding claims 23-25 and 28, they are claims corresponding to claims 4, 13, 14, & 4, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hessler in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0338319, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 8, Hessler discloses “removing the node identifier from the payload for transmission via the second control channel; padding the payload and adding, to the payload, an updated node identifier for transmission via the second control channel (Hessler, See 707 Fig.7c, add ID2 to B1; See 707 Fig.7c, the transmit B1 includes only ID1 & ID2 by deleting ID3, wherein ID2 the third identifier),” but Hessler does not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “padding the payload to satisfy a downlink control information length threshold” (Kim, See Fig.22, the relay node between eNB and UE; See ¶.657, if fields related to D2D transmission are defined to be included in the DCI format of a PDCCH, the total length of the DCI format may be reduced by eliminating the unnecessary fields, or the DCI format may be made to be the same length and transmitted by zero padding or the like).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “padding the payload to satisfy a DCI length threshold” as taught by Kim into the system of Hessler, so that it provides a way for the total length of the DCI format to be reduced or same length (Kim, See ¶.657).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights