DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to amendments for Application 18/268435 filed on 9/26/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 11-14 are presented for examination.
Examiner’s Note
The claims in the current application as amended are borderline restrictable. Applicant must keep this in mind when amending the claims. If the claims become directed to different embodiment, then the future claims will be restrictable and not be prosecuted.
Response to Arguments
4. Examiner statements in the mailed non-final with respect to obvious limitations including common knowledge or well-known in the art are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
5. Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed on 01/06/2015 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 103 with respect to Claims 11-14 are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Freda, Wang and the rest of the art do not teach the amendments (Remarks p. 6-9). Examiner disagrees because Freda still teaches the claimed limitation.
Applicant merely states that cited art, Freda, Wang, etc. do not teach the claim limitations by merely reciting the claim elements and alleges that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art. See remarks p. 6-9.
Examiner vigoursly disagrees because the cited art still teaches the claimed limitation. The Federal Circuit held that “the Board reasonable interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Leovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Here, Applicant merely recites the claim elements and alleges that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art like Freda or Wang. Further, Applicant assertions that the art does not teach the limitation above amount to unsupported attorney argument and therefore should be given “little weight.” See In re Geislet, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, the Examiner maintains the 35 USC 103 (a) rejections because the arguments merely recite the claim elements without support.
A skilled artisan when reviewing the office action with find a very detailed reasoning to illustrate how the 103 rejections under KSR. On the contrary, Applicant does not provide any substantial arguments as to why the cited portions do not teach the claims as amended nor attempt to distinguish the cited references/paragraphs. The applicant keeps using the term “merely” and draws a conclusion based on it. This is flawed reasoning because the arguments depends on an opinion of the writer to drawn a conclusory statement. There is no evidence provided nor at least an attempt of distinguishing the cited art. There is also nothing in the claim that prevents Examiner’s interpretation. In fact, Examiner should have rejected the claims under 102 and not 103. Thus, Examiner maintains his interpretation and art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda et al. (hereinafter Freda) US 2023/0180313 A1 in view of Shrivastava US 2021/0297842.
Regarding Claim 11, Freda teaches a User Equipment (UE), comprising a processor wherein:
the UE is a UE-to-UE (U2U) relay UE (¶0105; relay component), and
the processor is configured to split, based on a source side sidelink reference signal received power (SL-RSRP) and a target side SL-RSRP, a QoS requirement (¶0105; relay component that relay SLRB and QoS flow e.g., SLRB is allowed to be split over two separate paths. For example, for the configuration may comprise of one or more of the following: configuration of the RLC, MAC, and PHY at the relay WTRU; configuration of the RLC and/or MAC part of an SLRB at the relay WTRU and/or at a second remote WTRU (e.g., destination 193); whether an SLRB and/or a QoS flow is allowed to be relayed or not; whether an SLRB is allowed to be split over two separate paths (e.g., a first path via relay R1 and a second path via relay R2, a first path via relay R1 and a second path directly between source 191 and destination 193, etc.); routing rules for the splitting of traffic on an SLRB split between different paths; and/or, configuration of certain relaying functions, such as configuration of an adaptation layer at the relay.
Note that a WTRU may determine the configuration of the next hop of the relay WTRU to ensure end-to-end QoS. When a relay WTRU selects a SLRB-related parameters, it may do so in a way that ensures the end-to-end QoS is met over the entire relayed link (e.g., multiple hops between multiple relay WTRUs). Furthermore, the SLRB configurations may be determined by the WTRU-state and network node (e.g., gNB) under which the relay WTRU is connected/in coverage, and may therefore change over the path of the relay. See ¶0080, ¶0105, ¶0150 & ¶0188-¶0191).
Freda also teaches splitting QoS based on SL-RSRP or sidelink CBR e.g. one factor that may be involved in deciding the link over which to establish a connection may be SL quality (e.g., based on SL CQI, SL RSRP, flow/congestion control measurements, etc.). For example, a remote WTRU may establish/resume a Uu RRC connection via a relay WTRU as long as the PC5 link quality is above a threshold. Such link quality may be derived from SL CQI reports, SL RSRP reports, reports of the buffer occupancy, or similar, from the another WTRU (e.g., relay WTRU). In another example, a remote WTRU may establish a Uu RRC connection via a relay WTRU as long as the sidelink CBR is below a threshold. A remote WTRU may change from a direct Uu link to a relayed Uu link if the CBR changes accordingly. See ¶0191.
Freda teaches path 1 and 2 but does not expressly teach between a source side remote UE and a target side remote UE into a source side QoS requirement and a target side QoS requirement. However, Freda still teaches target state, see ¶0229. Also, this limitation is suggested from the above citations and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Freda in order to establish a connection based on SL quality that includes SL-RSRP (¶0191). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to configure relay components according to SLRB or QoS flow. Id. Despite that, Examiner cites to Shrivastava to teach source and target sides.
Shrivastava teaches between a source side remote UE and a target side remote UE into a source side QoS requirement and a target side QoS requirement (Fig. 12 & ¶0101-¶0106; Relay UE 1202 schedules transmission in priority order of service Qos for each of the remote UEs 1202 [remote UE] connected to it. it is described that the Relay UE provides the configuration for the TX/RX gaps information for side-link communication to remote UE 1202 through PC-5 link (side-link) so that the Relay UE 1204 and Remote UEs 1202 are in sync for TX and RX and saves power during non-transmission and no-reception periods (gaps)) based on a source side SL-RSRP and a target side SL-RSRP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Shrivastava into the system of Freda in order for discovery and communication scheduling enabling optimum system performance with DRX alignment and meeting varied QoS targets. Utilizing such teachings addresses congestion handling during system overload situations. Further, the present invention discloses quality of service (QoS) scheduling methods that consider DRX function achieve substantial gains over existing methods (abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, Freda in view of Shrivastava teaches the UE according to claim 11, Freda further teaches the processor is further configured to:
determine whether the source side SL-RSRP is higher or lower than the target side SL-RSRP, wherein in response to a determination that the source side SL-RSRP is higher than the target side SL-RSRP, sets the source side QoS requirement higher than the target side QoS requirement, and in response to a determination that the source side SL-RSRP is lower than the target side SL-RSRP, sets the source side QoS requirement lower than the target side QoS requirement (obvious from ¶0191; One factor that may be involved in deciding the link over which to establish a connection may be SL quality (e.g., based on SL CQI, SL RSRP, flow/congestion control measurements, etc.). For example, a remote WTRU may establish/resume a Uu RRC connection via a relay WTRU as long as the PC5 link quality is above a threshold. Such link quality may be derived from SL CQI reports, SL RSRP reports, reports of the buffer occupancy, or similar, from the another WTRU (e.g., relay WTRU). In another example, a remote WTRU may establish a Uu RRC connection via a relay WTRU as long as the sidelink CBR is below a threshold. A remote WTRU may change from a direct Uu link to a relayed Uu link if the CBR changes accordingly).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to the above claim, thus the same rationale applies. The only difference is that claim 13 specifies the congestion as CBR instead of
RSRP. Freda expressly teaches that SL-RSRP is measured in a similar manner to CBR (¶0311-¶0346) and that CBR threshold is being used (¶0233). Thus, claim 13 is also rejected.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to the above claim, thus the same rationale applies. The only difference is that claim 14 specifies the congestion as CBR instead of RSRP. Freda expressly teaches that SL-RSRP is measured in a similar manner to CBR (¶0311-¶0346) and that CBR threshold is being used (¶0233). Thus, claim 14 is also rejected.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) US 2023/0073469 in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) US 2021/0297905 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, Wang teaches a User Equipment (UE), comprising a processor configured to: UE is a UE-to-UE (U2U) relay UE (Fig. 10 & ¶0155-¶0165; UE-to-UE relay communication e.g., relay UE), the processor is configured to split based on a source side Channel Busy Rate (CBR) and a target side CBR a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement between a source side remote UE and a target side remote UE into a source side QoS requirement and a target side QoS requirement (¶0111, ¶0163-¶0165 & ¶0196-¶0202; Wang teaches the QoS information of service to be transmitted between the source UE and target UE3, and the end-to-end sidelink bearer configuration between the source UE and the target UE with the relay UE; and/or, the source UE, through forwarding a PC5 RRC signaling by the relay UE, exchanges the end-to-end sidelink bearer configuration between the source UE and the target UE with the target UE.
An SDAP layer maps the data packet to the PDCP entity of the corresponding SL DRB based on base station-configured or pre-configured SL DRB configuration and the mapping relationship from the QoS flow to the SL DRB and performs PDCP layer operations such as header compression, encryption, completion, and packet encapsulation.
Also, the QoS flow information includes any combination of the following: a PFI, a PQI, GFBR/MFBR, and a communication range.
This means that SDAP maps PC5 QoS flows to SL-DRBS for sidelink communications as needed to satisfy communication range in relation to the QoS. This mapping is similar to allocating QoS or splitting QoS between source and target sides where the relay UE reports forwarded service data related information to the base station of the relay UE. The information includes at least one of the following: the QoS information of service to be transmitted between UE1 and UE3, the end-to-end sidelink bearer configuration between the source UE and the target UE, or the PC5 BH bearer configuration between the source UE and the relay UE. The QoS information of service to be transmitted between UE1 and UE3 is from UE1 sending to the relay UE through a PC5 RRC message or carried in an adaptation layer packet header)
Wang teaches that based on SL DRB the QoS is mapped or allocated e.g., an SDAP layer maps the data packet to the PDCP entity of the corresponding SL DRB based on base station-configured or pre-configured SL DRB configuration and the mapping relationship from the QoS flow to the SL DRB and performs PDCP layer operations such as header compression, encryption, completion, and packet encapsulation. See ¶0163. But Wang does not expressly teach based on a source side CBR and a target side CBR.
Zhang teaches based on a source side CBR and a target side CBR (¶0082-¶0090; based on congestion level or CBR, a QoS threshold is modified to accommodate the system. For example, a QoS threshold and a congestion level threshold can be assigned to one or more resource pools. With such configuration, the UE is allowed to use the resource pools for the SL transmission (only) if a congestion level of the resource pools is lower than the congestion level threshold for the QoS threshold. For example, the network node may assign different QoS threshold and different associated congestion level to the same pool. The UE is allowed to start transmitting packets having a certain QoS on a given pool (only) if the congestion level (such as CBR) of such pool is lower than a certain congestion level threshold for the concerned QoS level. The UE shall stop using such pool if the congestion degrades above another congestion level for the concerned QoS level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Zhang into the system of Wang in order to perform transmission on the basis of the QoS information (abstract). Utilizing such teachings enable the system for controlling sidelink (SL) QoS in a cellular network, which could provide more solid sidelink QoS (¶0006).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang in view of Zhang teaches the UE according to claim 13, Zhang further teaches the processor is further configured to: determine whether the source side CBR Is higher or lower than the target side CBR wherein in the source side CBR is lower than the target side CBR, sets the source side QoS requirement higher than the target side QoS requirement, and in case the source side CBR is higher than the target side CBR, sets the source side QoS requirement lower than the target side QoS requirement (¶0082-¶0090; a QoS threshold and a congestion level threshold can be assigned to one or more resource pools. With such configuration, the UE is allowed to use the resource pools for the SL transmission (only) if a congestion level of the resource pools is lower than the congestion level threshold for the QoS threshold. For example, the network node may assign different QoS threshold and different associated congestion level to the same pool. The UE is allowed to start transmitting packets having a certain QoS on a given pool (only) if the congestion level (such as CBR) of such pool is lower than a certain congestion level threshold for the concerned QoS level. The UE shall stop using such pool if the congestion degrades above another congestion level for the concerned QoS level).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455