DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 18 February 2026.
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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 were pending in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 25 November 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 have been amended by amendments filed on 18 February 2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 8 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the prior art of record, specifically Cheng et al. (US 2019/0357033, hereinafter Cheng), does not disclose a host-client relationship as required by the amended claims, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons further detailed below in response to Applicant’s specific arguments. Applicant’s arguments amount to attempting to distinguish tethering from relaying based on features not claimed in independent claims 1 or 15. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not bear out the argued-for distinctions in view of the original disclosure.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) (emphasis added).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000); and MPEP § 2111.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "tethering" does not encompass relaying, "host UE" does not encompass a relay UE, and "client UE" does not encompass a remote UE) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, p. 10, lines 8-18 of the originally-filed Specification discloses examples of tethered connections as either a wired connection or wireless connection, wherein examples of wireless connections include: “Wi-Fi (that is, one or more of the IEEE 802.11 wireless standards), Bluetooth®, Zigbee®, Near-field Communication (NFC), and so one” (emphasis added). Thus, tethering encompasses appears to encompass relaying using sidelink communication.
The term “host user equipment (UE)” is not given a special definition in the original disclosure and does not appear to have a special meaning in the art that would normally differentiate a host UE from a device acting as a relay (i.e., a relay UE). Thus, a host UE is merely a device that includes all of the claimed features of at least independent claim 15 that performs the method of at least independent claim 1. Therefore, if a device is disclosed in a single reference or a reasonable combination of references as including the claimed features of claim 15 and performing the method of claim 1, then the device is a “host UE” as claimed regardless of what the prior art calls the device.
Similarly, the term “client user equipment” is has no special definition in the original disclosure, or a special meaning in the art that would differentiate a client UE from a device accessing a network remotely (i.e., a remote UE) beyond the features and methods inherent to the claimed client UE as provided in at least independent claims 1 and 15. Thus, the claimed client UE may encompass a device disclosed as including the features and performing the method steps inherent to the claimed client UE regardless of how the prior art refers to the device.
As provided in the Non-Final Rejection, Cheng was cited as disclosing a method of a first user equipment (UE), now a host UE, and the first UE, now the host UE. Non-Final Rejection pp. 3-4 and 12, citing Cheng at Figures 3-6, ¶¶ 48-58, 60-63, 66-67, 70, 73, 91, 93, 94, and 102-103, disclosing a transmitter (Tx) UE communicating with one or more receiver (Rx) UEs via one or more sidelink (SL) channels to perform one or more services, wherein the Tx UE determines slice identifiers based on a network configuration provided by a base station in a non-access stratum (NAS) message, radio resource control (RRC) message, or an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) device management (DM) message, and indicating the determined slice identifiers to the Rx UE(s) and base station.
As provided above, whether a device is referred to as a “first UE” or a “host UE” and whether a device is referred to as a “second UE” or a “client UE” is of no significant difference where the terms “host” and “client” have no special definition and first and second UEs were already interpreted as physically separate UEs. A tethered connection established with at least a second UE is of similar scope to a tethered connection established between a host UE and at least one client UE. Adding the phrase “to communicate with the network via the host UE” may narrow the scope for how a selected slice for use by the second/client UE is used, but this phrase may not help distinguish the claims over the prior art where the prior art discloses the subject matter of claim 2, which, for example, further requires the host UE to wirelessly communicate date for the at least one client UE over the selected slice using a first upstream link. Therefore, prior art that disclose former claims 1 and 2 still disclosed amended claims 1 and 2.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 8 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Cheng, at paragraphs 38-39, and 49-53, merely discloses peer-to-peer SL communication, not a host-client relationship, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a host-client relationship may not include SL communication) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, as provided above, the claims do not explicitly prohibit the claimed tethered connection from including SL communication, and none of the terms used in the claims are specially-defined or imbued with special meaning in the art to prohibit a tethered connection from including SL communication. In the rejection of claim 2 in the Non-Final Rejection, Cheng is cited at Figures 1, 5, 6, ¶¶ 32, 38, 91, 95, 99, and 104. Figure 1 is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that UE 120a and UE 120e, wherein UE 120e is illustrated as not having a direct connection to macro base station (BS) 110a, and that relay BS 110d is illustrated as relaying communication for UE 120d. As cited, Cheng, at ¶ 32, discloses that a “relay station may also be a UE that can relay transmissions for other UEs” and that “relay station 110d may communicate with macro BS 110a and a UE 120d in order to facilitate communication between BS 110a and UE 120d.” Thus, relay BS 110d is described as embodied as a relay UE relaying communications for UE 120d, which appears to disclose a host-client access relationship.
Thus, Cheng, as cited in the Non-Final Rejection, still appears to disclose subject matter within the scope of amended claims 1 and 15.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 9 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the amended claims exclude configurations in which two UEs merely exchange data directly with one another, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a host-client access relationship excludes any direct data exchange between UEs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, the claims do not appear to include any negative limitations, let alone a negative limitation excluding a host UE from performing SL communication with a client UE. Thus, whether prior art discloses SL communication does not appear to prevent the prior art from also disclosing matter within the scope of a host UE establishing a tethered connection with at least one client UE. As cited in the Non-Final Rejection, Cheng, at ¶ 32, discloses relaying by a UE for facilitating communications with a network for another UE, which appears to be within the scope of Applicant’s argued-for host-client access relationship.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 9 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Cheng, at ¶¶ 66-67, 70, 93, and 102-103, discloses a UE determining slice, not identifying a plurality of slices provided by a network, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a network providing a plurality of network slices as network slices) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, the limitation at issue reads as “identifying a plurality of network slices provided by a network.” The limitation does not place any conditions on how the network provides the plurality of network slices. Even if the claims required a network to deliver a data structure to a UE including network slice identifiers, Cheng, at ¶ 70, in describing Fig. 4, explicitly discloses a base station indicating information to be stored in the data structure using a signaling message. Figure 4 is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
506
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As provided in Fig. 4, the data structure includes slice type and identifier. Thus, a UE that is disclosed as receiving an indication of information to be stored in the disclosed data structure necessarily receives slice identifiers to be stored in the data structure. Therefore, Cheng explicitly discloses a network providing a plurality of network slices to a UE, which the UE identifies.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 9 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Cheng must include literal disclosure of the claimed network slices in order to anticipate the claimed network slices, not merely identifying local resource allocations, as provided under MPEP § 2131, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2131.
The term “literal” does not appear in any version of MPEP § 2131 available online, let alone the version of the MPEP that was current as of the time when the instant application was originally filed. If Applicant meant that disclosure must explicitly or identically described the claimed invention in order to anticipate a claim, then MPEP § 2131 directly contradicts Applicant’s assertion. Anticipation is not an ipsissimis verbis test — identifying terminology is not required, as provided above.
Here, as provided above, Cheng, at Fig. 4 and ¶¶ 67 and 70, discloses a Tx UE including a data structure including slice type/ID apparently made from one or more signaling message received from a base station indicating information to be stored in the data structure. Whether Cheng also discloses local SL resource partitioning is not germane to determining whether Cheng anticipates the feature at issue. Therefore, Cheng appears to anticipate a first/host UE identifying a plurality of network slices provided by a network.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 9-10 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Cheng doesn’t disclose a host UE selecting a network slice for use by at least one client UE to communication with the network via the host UE, because Cheng, at ¶¶ 73-74 and 94, supposedly merely discloses a Tx UE announcing which network slice only it would be using so as to cause the Rx UE to use a different slice, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As provided in the Non-Final Rejection, Cheng, at Figures 4, 5, and ¶¶ 73 and 94 disclose the “selecting” limitation, and Cheng, at Figs. 1, 5, 6, and ¶¶ 32, 38, 91, 95, 99, and 104 further disclose wirelessly communicating data for the second/client UE over the selected first network slice. Fig. 5 is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
514
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Of particular importance, reference number 545 in Fig. 5 illustrates that Tx UE and Rx UE communicate using the indicated slices, which were indicated to the base station, similar to how Tx UE indicated the slices to the Rx UE. Thus, when read together, as apparently intended by the explicit cited disclosure of Cheng (see Cheng ¶ 94), Cheng discloses a Tx UE indicating slices for SL communication to an Rx UE and base station, which are then used by the Tx UE and Rx UE for SL communication in the provision of a relay service wherein the Tx UE wirelessly relays communications for the Rx UE to/from the base station/network. As discussed above, the claimed tethering and host/client network access relationship does not exclude the use of SL communication in providing network access to an Rx UE by a Tx UE. Disclosure of an entity avoiding use of indicated slices or resources does not negate the illustrated disclosure of Tx UE(s) 505 and Rx UE(s) 515 communicating with use of slices and resource allocations (RAs), which are disclosed as indicated by the Tx UE to the Rx UE. Thus, Cheng still discloses subject matter within the scope of each limitation of independent claim 1, as provided in the prior art rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 10 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, since Cheng’s disclosure is apparently directed to avoiding collisions, not an affirmative selection, a proxy slice selection or delegated slice selection by a host UE as claimed, Cheng cannot be read as anticipating the independent claims, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
"Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102." Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). See also State Contracting & Eng’ g Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (The question of whether a reference is analogous art is not relevant to whether that reference anticipates. A reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.). See MPEP § 2131.05.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., affirmative network slice selection as a proxy or delegated network slice selection by a host UE for a client UE) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, whether Cheng discloses the use of announcements for avoiding collisions is not germane to determining whether Cheng discloses the claimed invention. As cited in the Non-Final Rejection and provided above, Cheng, read as a whole and as cited, discloses a Tx UE indicating network slices to an Rx UE, and the Tx UE and Rx UE use the network slices for SL communication while the Tx UE provides a relaying service to Rx UE. Thus, even if avoiding collisions is disclosed, Cheng still discloses the claimed invention.
Further, neither claims 1 nor 15 appear to require a host UE to indicate, to a client UE, a selected network slice for the client UE to use to communicate with the network via the host UE. The claims do not appear to limit how a client UE is to know which network slice it is use for communicating with a network via the host UE. Thus, Cheng’s disclosure of a Tx UE indicating the network slice(s) that will be used for SL communication, thereby providing relay service to the Rx UE is disclosure of the arranged elements of the claim at issue as claimed.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 10 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Cheng, at ¶¶ 62-69 merely discloses a Tx UE selecting its own resource allocation, not a slice for tethering/relaying or a slice for use by another UE, and, thus, does not disclose the “selecting” limitation, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As provided in the Non-Final Rejection and above, Cheng was cited at Figs. 4, 5, ¶¶ 73 and 94 for disclosing the “selecting” limitation, and Cheng was cited at Figs. 5, 6, ¶¶ 91, 95, 99, and 104 for disclosing the Tx UE wirelessly communicating data for the Rx UE, using the indicated slice(s), where, in the context of a Tx UE providing a relay service to Rx UE as described in ¶ 32. Thus, Cheng still appears to anticipate the independent claims as provided below.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 10-11 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance all the claims are allowable over Cheng for the reasons previously provided, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided above.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 10-11 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Cheng does not anticipate claim 2, as amended, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument on page 11 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Cheng can’t anticipate claim 2 because it supposedly lacks disclosure of Rx UE lacking independent network access and mere coordination of SL resource use, not relaying/tethering, and that disclosure of forwarding communications or relaying is not disclosure of tethering, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., tethering does not encompass relaying and that the client UE must lack independent network access) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, neither of the independent claims require anything of the claimed client UE other than to have a first tethered connection with the claimed host UE. The phrase “for use by the at least one client UE to communicate with the network via the host UE” is at best an recitation of an intended use for the claimed selected at least first network slice by the at least one client UE, not an active limitation on the method of the host UE. No portion of any of the claims appear to require that the at least one client device have no independent network access. Even if the claims were written to attempt to require that the at least one client device have no independent network access, unless the host UE is claimed to receive an indication from at least one client UE that the at least one client UE does not have independent network access, such an amended claim would not likely affect the scope of the claimed method of the host UE or the claimed host UE itself. Support for such an amendment is not apparent in the original disclosure. Even if the claimed at least one client UE could not have independent network access, Fig. 1, as provided above, illustrates UE 120d as without independent network access and relying on a relay, discloses as a UE acting as relay, for network access. “Tethering” has also not be shown to exclude relaying. Therefore, Cheng still appears to anticipate claim 2 as provided in the Non-Final Rejection and below.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pp. 13-14 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Thiebaut et al. (US 2024/0023007, hereinafter Thiebaut) is not pertinent, because it is directed to relaying, not tethering, and that a core network functions determines slices and provides the slices to a relay UE, not the relay UE identifying the slices, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the scope of “tether” and “relay” appear to at least significantly overlap, if not completely synonymous, as provided above, and the claims do not require a remote/client UE to lack independent network access, as provided above. Second, applicant’s argument that Thiebaut doesn’t disclose a host/relay UE identifying network slices provided by a network, because a core network function is disclosed as determining the network slices appears to contradict their argument for why Cheng’s supposed disclosure of a relay UE determining network slices from network-provided resource allocation is not disclosure of a host/relay UE identifying network slices. Thus, for the reasons provided above, Thiebaut still appears to be pertinent to the claimed invention, as provided below.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 as provided in the Non-Final Rejection is maintained below, except where required by amendment. Thus, this rejection is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 2019/0357033, previously made of record, hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng discloses a method, by a host user equipment (UE), comprising:
establishing a first tethered connection between the host UE and at least one client UE (Figs. 4, 5 and ¶¶ 60-63 and 91 disclose a transmitter (Tx) user equipment (UE) communicating with one or more receiver (Rx) UEs via one or more sidelink (SL) channels such as that illustrated in Fig. 3 and described ¶¶ 48-58 to perform one or more services, including a location-based service, an intersection assist service, a platooning service, a cooperative adaptive cruise control service, and/or a sensor sharing service);
identifying a plurality of network slices provided by a network (Figs. 4, 5, 6, and ¶¶ 66-67, 70, 93, and 102-103 disclose the Tx UE determining slice identifiers based on a data structure storing information provisioned based on a network configuration, such as a public land mobile network (PLMN) configuration for a PLMN being used by the UE and/or the base station (BS), or dynamically configured for a UE based on an indication received from a BS indicating information to be stored in the data structure using a signaling message, such as a non-access stratum (NAS) message, a radio resource control (RRC) message, and/or an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) message); and
selecting at least a first network slice from the plurality of network slices for use by the at least one client UE to communicate with the network via the host UE (Figs. 4, 5, and ¶¶ 73 and 94 disclose the Tx UE indicating the determined slice identifier(s) to the Rx UE and BS; Fig. 5 and ¶ 99 disclose the Tx UE and Rx UE(s) communicating using the slice(s) and resource allocation (RA); Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 38 disclose UE 120a, which appears to be positioned between UE 120e and Macro BS 110a similar to how the Tx UE is positioned between Rx UE(s) 515 and BS 510 in Fig. 5, as communicating with UE 120e via sidelink and performing operations of a BS, such as a relay station as described at ¶ 32, wherein the relay station communicates data between a UE and a BS).
Regarding Claim 2, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
wirelessly communicating data for the at least one client UE over the at least first network slice using a first upstream link (Figs. 5, 6 and ¶¶ 91, 95, 99, 104 disclose the Tx UE indicating the slice identifier(s) to the BS, the Tx UE and Rx UE communicating using the slice(s) and resource allocation(s) on one or more uplink channel(s); and Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 38 disclose UE 120a, which appears to be positioned between UE 120e and Macro BS 110a similar to how the Tx UE is positioned between Rx UE(s) 515 and BS 510 in Fig. 5, as communicating with UE 120e via sidelink and performing operations of a BS, such as a relay station as described at ¶ 32, wherein the relay station communicates data between a UE and a BS).
Regarding Claim 3, Cheng discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
selecting a second network slice from the plurality of network slices for use by the host UE (Figs. 5, 6 and ¶¶ 91, 95, 99, 104 disclose the Tx UE indicating the slice identifiers to the BS); and
wirelessly communicating data for the host UE over the second network slice using a second upstream link (Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 38 disclose UE 120a, which appears to be positioned between UE 120e and Macro BS 110a similar to how the Tx UE is positioned between Rx UE(s) 515 and BS 510 in Fig. 5, as communicating with UE 120e via sidelink and performing operations of a BS, such as a relay station as described at ¶ 32, wherein the relay station communicates data between a UE and a BS; and ¶ 91 disclose the Tx UE communicating with the BS via multiple uplink channels).
Regarding Claim 4, Cheng discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
maintaining the first upstream link concurrently with the second upstream link (Figs. 1, 5, and ¶¶ 32, 35, 38, and 91 disclose Tx UE serving multiple Rx UEs, such as by serving as a relay for multiple remote UEs apparently contemporaneously, such as in Fig. 3 as described by ¶¶ 50 and 55 where D2D transmissions may be one-to-many broadcast and/or multicast transmissions).
Regarding Claim 5, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the at least first network slice comprises:
obtaining a context associated with at least one of the at least one client UE or the at least first network slice (Figs. 4-6, and ¶¶ 62-65, 92, and 102 disclose the Tx UE determining a service type to be used by the Tx UE for D2D communication, such as based on a D2D application executing on the Tx UE, which provides information on Quality of Service parameters (a packet loss rate requirement, a packet error rate requirement, a bit rate requirement, a throughput requirement, a latency requirement, a reliability requirement, an availability requirement, and/or a jitter requirement; indicated by a QoS class identifier (QCI) and/or 5G QoS identifier (5QI) value) and transmission characteristics (a maximum transmit power, a set of supported modulation and coding schemes (MCS), a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) configuration (e.g., for repetitions, acknowledgement (ACK) or negative acknowledgement (NACK) feedback), a carrier aggregation configuration, and/or a transmission diversity characteristic (e.g., for time hopping, frequency hopping, and/or repetitions)));
comparing the context to selection criteria of one or more network slice selection policies (Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶ 66-70, 93, and 103 disclose the Tx UE determining the slice identifier(s) based on the determined service type(s), including QoS parameters and transmission characteristics according to a data structure associating service type, QoS, slice type and resource allocation with each other, as provided by the network); and
selecting the at least first network slice responsive to comparing the context to the selection criteria of the one or more network slice selection policies (Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶ 68, 71-73, 93-94, and 103-104 disclose the Tx UE determining the slice identifier(s) and indicating it/them to the Rx UE and BS).
Regarding Claim 7, Cheng discloses the method of claim 5, wherein selecting the at least first network slice further comprises:
determining the context satisfies selection criteria of at least one network slice selection policy of the one or more network slice selection policies (Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶ 66-70, 93, and 103 disclose the Tx UE determining the slice identifiers based on the determined service types, including QoS parameters and transmission characteristics according to a data structure associating service type, QoS, slice type and resource allocation with each other, as provided by the network); and
selecting the at least first network slice responsive to the context satisfying the selection criteria of the at least one network slice selection policy (Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶ 68, 71-73, 93-94, and 103-104 disclose the Tx UE determining the slice identifier and indicating it/them to the Rx UE and BS),
wherein the at least first network slice is separate and distinct from a second network slice used by the host UE (Id.).
Regarding Claim 9, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
wirelessly communicating data for the at least one client UE over the at least first network slice using a first upstream link (Figs. 5, 6 and ¶¶ 91, 95, 99, 104 disclose the Tx UE indicating the slice identifier(s) to the BS, the Tx UE and Rx UE communicating using the slice(s) and resource allocation(s) on one or more uplink channel(s); and Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 38 disclose UE 120a, which appears to be positioned between UE 120e and Macro BS 110a similar to how the Tx UE is positioned between Rx UE(s) 515 and BS 510 in Fig. 5, as communicating with UE 120e via sidelink and performing operations of a BS, such as a relay station as described at ¶ 32, wherein the relay station communicates data between a UE and a BS);
establishing a second tethered connection with a third UE (Figs. 4, 5 and ¶¶ 60-63 and 91 disclose a transmitter (Tx) user equipment (UE) communicating with one or more receiver (Rx) UEs via one or more sidelink (SL) channels such as that illustrated in Fig. 3 and described ¶¶ 48-58 to perform one or more services, including a location-based service, an intersection assist service, a platooning service, a cooperative adaptive cruise control service, and/or a sensor sharing service);
selecting at least a second network slice from the plurality of network slices for use by the third UE (Figs. 4, 5, and ¶¶ 73 and 94 disclose the Tx UE indicating the determined slice identifier(s) to the Rx UEs and BS); and
wirelessly communicating data for the third UE over the at least second network slice using a second upstream link (Figs. 5, 6 and ¶¶ 91, 95, 99, 104 disclose the Tx UE indicating the slice identifiers to the BS, the Tx UE and Rx UE communicating using the slices and resource allocations on the uplink channels; and Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 38 disclose UE 120a, which appears to be positioned between UE 120e and Macro BS 110a similar to how the Tx UE is positioned between Rx UEs 515 and BS 510 in Fig. 5, as communicating with UE 120e via sidelink and performing operations of a BS, such as a relay station as described at ¶ 32, wherein the relay station communicates data between a UE and a BS),
wherein the at least second network slice is separate and distinct from the at least first network slice (Id.), and
wherein the first upstream link is maintained concurrently with the second upstream link (Id.).
Regarding Claim 10, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
wirelessly communicating data for the at least one client UE over the at least first network slice using a first upstream link (Figs. 5, 6 and ¶¶ 91, 95, 99, 104 disclose the Tx UE indicating the slice identifier(s) to the BS, the Tx UE and Rx UE communicating using the slice(s) and resource allocation(s) on one or more uplink channel(s); and Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 38 disclose UE 120a, which appears to be positioned between UE 120e and Macro BS 110a similar to how the Tx UE is positioned between Rx UE(s) 515 and BS 510 in Fig. 5, as communicating with UE 120e via sidelink and performing operations of a BS, such as a relay station as described at ¶ 32, wherein the relay station communicates data between a UE and a BS);
selecting a second network slice from the plurality of network slices for use by the at least (Figs. 4, 5 and ¶¶ 60-63 and 91 disclose a transmitter (Tx) user equipment (UE) communicating with one or more receiver (Rx) UEs via one or more sidelink (SL) channels such as that illustrated in Fig. 3 and described ¶¶ 48-58 to perform one or more services, including a location-based service, an intersection assist service, a platooning service, a cooperative adaptive cruise control service, and/or a sensor sharing service); and
wirelessly communicating data for the at least second one client UE over the second network slice using a second upstream link (Figs. 5, 6 and ¶¶ 91, 95, 99, 104 disclose the Tx UE indicating the slice identifiers to the BS, the Tx UE and Rx UE communicating using the slices and resource allocations on the uplink channels; and Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 38 disclose UE 120a, which appears to be positioned between UE 120e and Macro BS 110a similar to how the Tx UE is positioned between Rx UEs 515 and BS 510 in Fig. 5, as communicating with UE 120e via sidelink and performing operations of a BS, such as a relay station as described at ¶ 32, wherein the relay station communicates data between a UE and a BS — the relay is disclosed as using multiple slices for relaying — this feature is not limited to a second slice being exclusively used by the first UE),
wherein the second network slice is separate and distinct from the at least first network slice (Id.), and
wherein the first upstream link is maintained concurrently with the second upstream link (Id.).
Regarding Claim 11, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the at least first network slice comprises:
transmitting information associated with the plurality of network slices (Figs. 4, 5, and ¶¶ 73 and 94 disclose the Tx UE indicating the determined slice identifier(s) to the Rx UE and BS);
receiving a selection of the at least first network slice from the at least one client UE responsive to transmitting the information (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 111-112 disclose the first UE receiving a slice identifier from the second UE to be used by the second UE as described in description associated with Figs. 4-5); and
selecting the at least first network slice responsive to receiving the selection from the at least one client UE (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 113-114 disclose the first UE determining the resource allocation for the second UE based on the slice identifier and preventing its own use of those resources for the second UE to use those resources).
Regarding Claim 13, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a context of the first tethered connection (Figs. 4-6, and ¶¶ 62-65, 92, and 102 disclose the Tx UE determining a service type to be used by the Tx UE for D2D communication, such as based on a D2D application executing on the Tx UE, which provides information on Quality of Service parameters (a packet loss rate requirement, a packet error rate requirement, a bit rate requirement, a throughput requirement, a latency requirement, a reliability requirement, an availability requirement, and/or a jitter requirement; indicated by a QoS class identifier (QCI) and/or 5G QoS identifier (5QI) value) and transmission characteristics (a maximum transmit power, a set of supported modulation and coding schemes (MCS), a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) configuration (e.g., for repetitions, acknowledgement (ACK) or negative acknowledgement (NACK) feedback), a carrier aggregation configuration, and/or a transmission diversity characteristic (e.g., for time hopping, frequency hopping, and/or repetitions))); and
allocating one or more resources for the first tethered connection based on one or more policies and the context of the first tethered connection (¶¶ 66-70, 92, and 103 disclose the Tx UE determining the slice identifier based on the service type, QoS parameters, and transmission characteristics (i.e., context) based on a data structure (i.e., a policy), wherein a resource allocation is determined based on the determined slice identifier according to the data structure).
Regarding Claim 14, Cheng discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium embodying a set of executable instructions, the set of executable instructions to manipulate one or both of a processor and one or more radio frequency modems of a user equipment to perform the method of claim 1 (¶¶ 8 and 12).
Regarding Claims 15-20, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 15-20 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 1-5 and 7, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2017/074486, previously cited, hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 6, Cheng disclose the method of claim 5.
Cheng may not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the one or more network slice selection policies is received from the at least one client UE.
However, in analogous art, Li discloses wherein at least one of the one or more network slice selection policies is received from the at least one client UE (Fig. 8 and p. 18, lines 14-19 disclose a UE sending a message to a base station requesting a slice to be turned on).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li to modify Cheng in order to have the Rx UE request a particular slice for the Tx UE to use where the Tx UE and Rx UE have access to the data structure associating slice identifiers with QoS parameters, making an indication of a slice effectively the same as indicating a QoS for the D2D service that the Tx UE is to provide to the Rx UE, wherein the Tx UE is capable of performing the functions of a BS when determining a slice identifier(s). One would have been motivated to do this, because such a request may help allow all associated entities to be aware of which slice is being used and its associated slice information, which may allow the UE to performing random access on the newly created network slice (Li p. 18, line 26 – p. 19 line 3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2023/0119027, previously cited, hereinafter Yang) and Gage (US 2017/0332212, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 8, Cheng discloses the method of any of claim 5, further comprising:
wirelessly communicating data for the at least one client UE over the at least first network slice using a first upstream link (Figs. 5, 6 and ¶¶ 91, 95, 99, 104 disclose the Tx UE indicating the slice identifier(s) to the BS, the Tx UE and Rx UE communicating using the slice(s) and resource allocation(s) on one or more uplink channel(s); and Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 38 disclose UE 120a, which appears to be positioned between UE 120e and Macro BS 110a similar to how the Tx UE is positioned between Rx UE(s) 515 and BS 510 in Fig. 5, as communicating with UE 120e via sidelink and performing operations of a BS, such as a relay station as described at ¶ 32, wherein the relay station communicates data between a UE and a BS), and
wherein selecting the at least first network slice further comprises:
determining the context fails to satisfy the selection criteria of any of the one or more network slice selection policies (Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶ 66-70, 93, and 103 disclose the Tx UE determining the slice identifiers based on the determined service types, including QoS parameters and transmission characteristics according to a data structure associating service type, QoS, slice type and resource allocation with each other, as provided by the network); and
selecting the at least first network slice responsive to the context satisfying of any of the one or more network slice selection policies (Figs. 4-6 and ¶¶ 68, 71-73, 93-94, and 103-104 disclose the Tx UE determining the slice identifier and indicating it/them to the Rx UE and BS).
Cheng may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least first network slice is a default network slice used by the host UE, and
wherein the first upstream link is a default upstream link used by the host UE for wirelessly communicating data over the default network slice.
However, in analogous art, Yang discloses:
wherein the at least first network slice is a default network slice used by the host UE
(Fig. 9 and ¶¶ 108-109, 111-114 discloses a terminal accessing a network slice, compares the connection quality of the network slice to a default network and switches to the default network upon determining that connection quality of the default network is better than the network slice — “default network” appears to be a default network slice, otherwise the connection quality of a network slice and default network could not be reasonably compared).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yang to modify Cheng in order to use a default network slice instead of a requested network slice. One would have been motivated to do this, because if quality on the network slice is worse than that of a default network, then switching to the default network and releasing the slice would help ensure normal use of the affected application while reducing costs related to time-based charges for using the network slice (Yang ¶ 59).
Cheng-Yang may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first upstream link is a default upstream link used by the host UE for wirelessly communicating data over the default network slice.
However, in analogous art, Gage discloses:
wherein the first upstream link is a default upstream link used by the host UE for wirelessly communicating data over the default network slice (Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 75-79 discloses a UE being designated a default network slice including a UE-Core Network (CN) User Plane (UP) function for receiving uplink user plane traffic associated with the network slice).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gage to modify Cheng-Yang in order to have a network include a default UP function for a default network slice. One would have been motivated to do this, because a main purpose of network slicing is to provide the ability to create isolated private virtual networks which independently manage different traffic flows over a network (Gage ¶ 3), including the ability to reconfigure functions for handling uplink user plane traffic and downlink user plane traffic, (Gage ¶¶ 64-70), which may help improve flexibility and allow independent evolution of radio access network (RAN) and core network (CN) operation (Gage ¶ 32).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Venkataraman et al. (US 2023/0180169, previously cited, hereinafter Venkataraman).
Regarding Claim 12, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1.
Cheng may not explicitly disclose:
receiving a request from the at least second one client UE to release the at least first network slice; and
releasing the at least first network slice responsive to receiving the request.
However, in analogous art, Venkataraman discloses:
receiving a request from the at least second one client UE to release the at least first network slice (Fig. 13 and ¶¶ 105-106 disclose a UE requesting the release of a specified NSSAI); and
releasing the at least first network slice responsive to receiving the request (Id. discloses the NSSAI being released as requested).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Venkataraman to modify Cheng in order to release a slice as requested by a second UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because such a request allows the UE to react to changes in a subscribed NSSAI (Venkataraman ¶ 100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thiebaut et al. (US 2024/0023007), at Figs. 5, 6B and associated description, particularly, ¶¶ 150 and 156, discloses a relay UE receiving a request for a network slice from a remote user device, the relay UE obtaining a slice identifier set (NSSAI) comprising a first slice identifier (S-NSSAI) for relaying, and sending, to the remote UE, the NSSAI for use in a relay session.
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 THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468