DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request filed 5/20/2026 and the Pre-Appeal Conference decision issued 7/7/2026. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/20/2026 with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) are persuasive and the previous rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
Independent claim 1 and its corresponding dependent claims 1-4 are now indicated as allowed.
Regarding independent claim 5, a further search of the prior art has resulted in discovery of Freda et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0098815 A1), which teaches a WTRU relay system and method including a WTRU receiving from other WTRUs an In-Coverage/Out-of-Coverage indication from the WTRUs indicating whether the WTRUs are in-coverage or out-of-coverage of a suitable cell (See paragraphs 780-781 and Figure 5 of Freda et al.). Such an indication has the advantage of allowing devices to know of the current cell coverage status of each other to better inform a potential relay process. Therefore, it is believed that the limitations of claim 5 are rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Freda et al. Please see the rejections below for further detail.
Due to the new grounds of rejection, this action is made non-final.
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.
Claims 5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0103997 A1) in view of Freda et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0098815 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Kang et al. discloses a remote user equipment (UE) device comprising: a receiver and a controller (See paragraphs 66-67, paragraph 71, paragraphs 95-98, Figure 1A and Figure 3 of Kang et al. for reference to a remote terminal UE including a controller and communication unit, which acts as a transmitter and receiver). Kang et al. also discloses the receiver configured to receive a coverage indicator from each of a plurality of candidate relay UE devices, each coverage indicator indicating whether the candidate relay UE device is capable to provide relay for a target (See paragraphs 66-67, paragraphs 72-73, paragraphs 121-124, and Figures 1A and 6B of Kang et al. for reference to the remote UE transmitting a discovery solicitation message and receiving discover messages from one or more candidate relay UEs indicating capability of the candidate relay UEs to provide relay for a target destination UE, i.e. U2U relay, and/or provide relay for a base station, i.e. U2N relay). Kang et al. also discloses the controller configured to select, from the plurality of candidate relay UE devices, a selected relay UE device for providing a relay connection to a target UE device (See paragraphs 121-122, paragraph 124, and Figure 6B of Kang et al. for reference to the remote UE selecting a relay UE based on receiving discovery messages, wherein the selected relay UE is capable of providing relay to an target destination UE indicated a transmitted discovery solicitation message). Although Kang et al. does disclose receiving coverage indicators indicating whether the candidate relay UE devices are capable to provide relay for a target (See paragraphs 66-67, paragraphs 72-73, paragraphs 121-124, and paragraph 184 of Kang et al.), Kang et al. does not specifically disclose each coverage indicator indicating whether the candidate relay UE device is in coverage of a cell. However, Freda et al., in the field of communications, discloses a WTRU relay system and method including a WTRU receiving from other WTRUs an In-Coverage/Out-of-Coverage indication from the WTRUs indicating whether the WTRUs are in-coverage or out-of-coverage of a suitable cell (See paragraphs 780-781 and Figure 5 of Freda et al.). Such an indication has the advantage of allowing devices to know of the current cell coverage status of each other to better inform a potential relay process. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Freda et al., to combine receiving indications regarding whether devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage of a suitable cell, as suggested by Freda et al., within the system and method of Kang et al., with the motivation being to allow devices to know of the current cell coverage status of each other to better inform a potential relay process.
With respect to claim 8, Kang et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to select the selected relay UE device based on one or more communication paths from the remote UE device to the target UE device capable of being provided by each of the plurality of candidate relay UE devices (See paragraph 124, paragraph 189 of Kang et al. for reference to a strength of a signal between the remote UE and a relay UE, i.e. the path between the UEs, being used to determine whether the relay UE is capable of providing sidelink relay for the remote UE, wherein only relay UEs determined to be capable of providing the relay are selected).
With respect to claim 9, Kang et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to select the selected relay UE device based an expected reliability of the communication paths (See paragraph 124, paragraph 189 of Kang et al. for reference to a strength of a signal between the remote UE and a relay UE, i.e. an expected reliability of the path between the UEs, being used to determine whether the relay UE is capable of providing sidelink relay for the remote UE, wherein only relay UEs determined to be capable of providing the relay are selected).
With respect to claim 10, Kang et al. discloses a transmitter configured to transmit a Model B discovery request identifying the target UE device, the receiver configured to receive a plurality of Model B discovery responses, each of the Model B discovery responses comprising one of the coverage indicators (See paragraphs 121-124, paragraph 133, and Figure 6B for reference to transmitting a discovery solicitation message from the remote UE indicating a target destination UE and selecting a relay UE based on received discover messages in response to the solicitation message, wherein the discovery solicitation and discovery message may be of model B).
With respect to claim 11, as shown above in the rejection of claim 5, Freda et al. renders obvious wherein at least one of the coverage indicators comprises a target UE coverage indicator indicating whether the target UE device is in coverage of a cell (See paragraphs 780-781 and Figure 5 of Freda et al. for reference to a WTRU relay system and method including a WTRU receiving from other WTRUs an In-Coverage/Out-of-Coverage indication from the WTRUs indicating whether the WTRUs are in-coverage or out-of-coverage of a suitable cell). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. in view of Freda et al., and in further view of Kaur et al. (U.S. Patent US 10,531,365 B2).
With respect to claim 6, although Kang et al. does disclose a UE indicating that it can provide U2N relay (See paragraphs 184-185 of Kang et al.), Kang et al. does not specifically disclose wherein coverage indicator comprises a cell identifier uniquely identifying the cell. However, Kaur et al., in the field of communications, discloses a relay WTRU transmitting an indication of a cell ID of a base station it is being served by (See column 11 lines 28-47 and Figure 4 of Kaur et al.). Transmitting an indication of a cell ID of a base station a relay UE is being served by has the advantage of allowing a remote device to determine to which specific base station a relay UE may provide relay service. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Kaur et al., to combine transmitting an indication of a cell ID of a base station a relay UE is being served by, as suggested by Kaur et al., within the system and method of Kang et al., with the motivation being to allow a remote device to determine to which specific base station a relay UE may provide relay service.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. in view of Freda et al., and in further view of Pan et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0007445 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Kang et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: initiate a timer when the transmitter transmits a Model B discovery request; and delay selecting the selected relay UE device until the timer has expired. However, Pan et al., in the field of communications, discloses in order to make a relay selection, a source UE can setup a timer after sending out a Direct Communication Request for collecting the corresponding response messages, wherein the messages may be Model B discovery/selection messages (See paragraph 294 and paragraph 297 of Pan et al.). Using a timer has the advantage of allowing time for all responses to a relay request message to be received before deciding on which relay to select. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Pan et al., to combine using a timer, as suggested by Pan et al., within the system and method of Kang et al., with the motivation being to allow time for all responses to a relay request message to be received before deciding on which relay to select.
With respect to claim 13, Kang et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: initiate a timer when the receiver receives a first Model B discovery response of the plurality of Model B discovery responses; and delay selecting the selected relay UE device until the timer has expired. However, Pan et al., in the field of communications, discloses in order to make a relay selection, a source UE can setup a timer after receiving the first copy of the Direct Communication Request for collecting multiple copies of the message from multiple different paths before making the decision, wherein the messages may be Model B discovery/selection messages (See paragraph 294 and paragraph 297 of Pan et al.). Using a timer has the advantage of allowing time for all responses to a relay request message to be received before deciding on which relay to select. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Pan et al., to combine using a timer, as suggested by Pan et al., within the system and method of Kang et al., with the motivation being to allow time for all responses to a relay request message to be received before deciding on which relay to select.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 are allowed.
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights