DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/19/2026. Claims 3, 9-10 have been canceled and claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-15 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01-2172.04. The omitted step is a step of using a result of measurement to perform something and wherein clauses are not positive recited in the claim or non-limiting descriptive clauses. Therefore, they carry no patentable weight.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a2] as being anticipated by Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505].
As claims 1 and 13-15, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] discloses a method performed by a remote user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving a predetermined signal from each of one or more candidate relay UEs [Fig 3, Ref 316 discloses relay UE send a discovery message to a remote UE, Par. 0108]; performing measurement on the predetermined signal [Par. 0119 discloses remote UE performs a measurement of relay UE discovery signal]; and selecting a relay UE [Par. 0104-0105 discloses remote selects a relay based on UU threshold related information which is measured by Relay and QOS of PC5 which measured by remote by comparing the received UU threshold related to QOS from relay and measured PC5 link with thresholds that received from the base station, Par. 0112], wherein the predetermined signal includes Uu link threshold-related information of each of the candidate relay UEs [Fig 3, Ref 316 discloses remote receives measured UU threshold related information from each relay, Par. 0108], wherein a candidate relay UE set is determined based on comparing a Uu link threshold value related quality of service (QoS) of a service to be transmitted and received through the relay UE and the Uu link threshold-related information of each of the candidate relay UE [The wherein clause is are not positive recited in the claim or non-limiting descriptive clauses. Therefore, it carries no patentable weight, See MPEP 2172.04], wherein the relay UE is selected from the candidate relay UE set [The wherein clause is are not positive recited in the claim or non-limiting descriptive clauses. Therefore, it carries no patentable weight, See MPEP 2172.04], and wherein the Uu link threshold value is determined differently for each of the service [The wherein clause is are not positive recited in the claim or non-limiting descriptive clauses. Therefore, it carries no patentable weight, See MPEP 2172.04].
Claim(s) 2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] in view of Xu [US 2018/0139682].
As claim 2, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] fail to fully disclose what Xu [US 2018/0139682] discloses the selecting of the one or more relay UE includes: determining the candidate relay UE set including relay UE having a greater Uu link threshold value than the Uu link threshold value related to the QoS [Fig. 8, Par. 0213, 0206 discloses the measured UU threshold value is greater than configured threshold which relates to QOS] and selecting a relay UE having a highest received signal strength from the candidate relay set [Fig 8, Par. 0213, 0206 discloses remote selects a relay based on highest RSSI of PC5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for determining a candidate set which has quality greater than minimum UU threshold related to QOS for selecting by remote as disclosed by Xu into the teaching of Thyagarajan. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 11, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] fail to fully disclose what Xu [US 2018/0139682] discloses Xu [US 2018/0139682] discloses the remote UE receives information triggering relay reselection from the selected relay UE [Fig 9, Ref S720-S730 discloses remote receives UU quality from relay].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the remote UE receives information triggering relay reselection from the selected relay UE as disclosed by Xu into the teaching of Thyagarajan. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 12, Xu [US 2018/0139682] the information triggering the relay reselection is transmitted based on that the relay UE does not satisfy a Uu threshold condition [Fig 9, Ref S720-S730 disclosed if UU quality is less than threshold than reselection relay].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] and Xu [US 2018/0139682] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chang [US 2023/0422141 with provisional app 63/089771].
As claim 4, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] and Xu [US 2018/0139682] fail to fully disclose what Chang [US 2023/0422141 with provisional app 63/089771] discloses relay UEs included in the candidate relay UE set satisfy a second Uu link threshold corresponding to a minimum Uu link signal strength for a relay [Fig 3 and Par. 0016, 0020 discloses a relay receives a minimum and maximum UU threshold which use a trigger for relay to send discovery message to remote].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising relay UEs included in the candidate relay UE set satisfy a second Uu link threshold corresponding to a minimum Uu link signal strength for a relay as disclosed by Chang into the teaching of Thyagarajan and Xu. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 5, Thyagarajan discloses based on absence of the relay UE included in the candidate relay UE set, the remote UE selects a relay UE with a highest signal strength among the relay UEs that satisfy the second Uu link threshold [Par. 0096 discloses if no potential relay, then the remote select a suitable relay regardless of its UU quality “UU quality is meet a minimum of UU threshold for triggering the discovery message].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] in view of Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860].
As claim 6, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] fails to fully disclose what Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860] discloses based on the predetermined signal being a discovery message, the remote UE performs measurement even if only physical layer ID information is successfully decoded from the physical layer ID information and medium access control (MAC) layer ID information of the discovery message [Par. 0044-0045 discloses the remote measures the quality of discovery message of PC5 based on physical layer ID and discovery message includes layer 1 and Layer 2 ID, Fig 3. Ref 200-202 and 204].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising based on the predetermined signal being a discovery message, the remote UE performs measurement even if only physical layer ID information is successfully decoded from the physical layer ID information and medium access control (MAC) layer ID information of the discovery message as disclosed by Sorrentino into the teaching of Thyagarajan. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] and Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Miao [US 2023/0232201].
As claim 7, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] and Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860] fail to fully disclose what Miao [US 2023/0232201] discloses a sidelink control channel (SCI) related to the discovery message includes only a source ID from the source ID and a destination ID [Par. 0055 disclose discovery only includes source identifier which related to SCI is broadcasted to the UE].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising a sidelink control channel (SCI) related to the discovery message includes only a source ID from the source ID and a destination ID as disclosed by Miao into the teaching of Thyagarajan and Sorrentino. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 8, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] and Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860] fail to fully disclose what Miao [US 2023/0232201] discloses the measurement is related to sidelink reference signal received power (SD-RSRP) [Par. 0037 discloses SD-RSRP].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising a the measurement is related to sidelink reference signal received power (SD-RSRP) as disclosed by Maio into the teaching of Thyagarajan and Sorrentino. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] in view of Wang [US 2024/0179726] and Huang [US 2020/0221467].
As claims 1 and 13-15, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] discloses a method performed by a remote user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving a predetermined signal from each of one or more candidate relay UEs [Fig 3, Ref 316 discloses relay UE send a discovery message to a remote UE, Par. 0108]; performing measurement on the predetermined signal [Par. 0119 discloses remote UE performs a measurement of relay UE discovery signal]; and selecting a relay UE [Par. 0104-0105 discloses remote selects a relay based on UU threshold related information which is measured by Relay and QOS of PC5 which measured by remote by comparing the received UU threshold related to QOS from relay and measured PC5 link with thresholds that received from the base station, Par. 0112], wherein the predetermined signal includes Uu link threshold-related information of each of the candidate relay UEs [Fig 3, Ref 316 discloses remote receives measured UU threshold related information from each relay, Par. 0108]. However, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] fails to disclose wherein a candidate relay UE set is determined based on comparing a Uu link threshold value related quality of service (QoS) of a service to be transmitted and received through the relay UE and the Uu link threshold-related information of each of the candidate relay UE, wherein the relay UE is selected from the candidate relay UE set, and wherein the Uu link threshold value is determined differently for each of the service. In the same field of endeavor, Wang [US 2024/0179726]discloses wherein a candidate relay UE set is determined based on comparing a Uu link threshold value related quality of service (QoS) of a service to be transmitted and received through the relay UE and the Uu link threshold-related information of each of the candidate relay UE [Par. 0155-0160, 0204 discloses the remote selects relay based on QOS of transmitted and received of relay and UU link threshold relation information, The wherein clause is are not positive recited in the claim or non-limiting descriptive clauses. Therefore, it carries no patentable weight, See MPEP 2172.04], wherein the relay UE is selected from the candidate relay UE set [Par. 0155-0160, 0204, The wherein clause is are not positive recited in the claim or non-limiting descriptive clauses. Therefore, it carries no patentable weight, See MPEP 2172.04]. However, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505] and Wang [US 2024/0179726] fail to disclose wherein the Uu link threshold value is determined differently for each of the service. In the same field of endeavor, Huang [US 2020/0221467] discloses wherein the Uu link threshold value is determined differently for each of the service [Par. 0035 discloses threshold is associated with a service, The wherein clause is are not positive recited in the claim or non-limiting descriptive clauses. Therefore, it carries no patentable weight, See MPEP 2172.04].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the Uu link threshold value is determined differently for each of the service as disclosed by Huang into the teaching of Wang as disclosed the remote UE selects the relay UE based on quality of service (QoS) of a service to be transmitted and received through the relay and the Uu link threshold-related information of each of the candidate relay UE into the teaching of Thyagarajan. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
Claim(s) 2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726] and Huang [US 2020/0221467] as applied to claims 1 or 2 above, and further in view of in view of Xu [US 2018/0139682].
As claim 2, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726] and Huang [US 2020/0221467] fail to fully disclose what Xu [US 2018/0139682] discloses the selecting of the one or more relay UE includes: determining the candidate relay UE set including relay UE having a greater Uu link threshold value than the Uu link threshold value related to the QoS [Fig. 8, Par. 0213, 0206 discloses the measured UU threshold value is greater than configured threshold which relates to QOS] and selecting a relay UE having a highest received signal strength from the candidate relay set [Fig 8, Par. 0213, 0206 discloses remote selects a relay based on highest RSSI of PC5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for determining a candidate set which has quality greater than minimum UU threshold related to QOS for selecting by remote as disclosed by Xu into the teaching of Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726] and Huang [US 2020/0221467]. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 11, Xu [US 2018/0139682] discloses the remote UE receives information triggering relay reselection from the selected relay UE [Fig 9, Ref S720-S730 discloses remote receives UU quality from relay].
As claim 12, Xu [US 2018/0139682] the information triggering the relay reselection is transmitted based on that the relay UE does not satisfy a Uu threshold condition [Fig 9, Ref S720-S730 disclosed if UU quality is less than threshold than reselection relay].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726], Huang [US 2020/0221467] and Xu [US 2018/0139682] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chang [US 2023/0422141 with provisional app 63/089771].
As claim 4, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726], Huang [US 2020/0221467] and Xu [US 2018/0139682] fail to fully disclose what Chang [US 2023/0422141 with provisional app 63/089771] discloses relay UEs included in the candidate relay UE set satisfy a second Uu link threshold corresponding to a minimum Uu link signal strength for a relay [Fig 3 and Par. 0016, 0020 discloses a relay receives a minimum and maximum UU threshold which use a trigger for relay to send discovery message to remote].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising relay UEs included in the candidate relay UE set satisfy a second Uu link threshold corresponding to a minimum Uu link signal strength for a relay as disclosed by Chang into the teaching of Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726], Huang [US 2020/0221467] and Xu [US 2018/0139682]. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 5, Thyagarajan discloses based on absence of the relay UE included in the candidate relay UE set, the remote UE selects a relay UE with a highest signal strength among the relay UEs that satisfy the second Uu link threshold [Par. 0096 discloses if no potential relay, then the remote select a suitable relay regardless of its UU quality “UU quality is meet a minimum of UU threshold for triggering the discovery message].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726] and Huang [US 2020/0221467] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860].
As claim 6, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726] and Huang [US 2020/0221467] fail to fully disclose what Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860] discloses based on the predetermined signal being a discovery message, the remote UE performs measurement even if only physical layer ID information is successfully decoded from the physical layer ID information and medium access control (MAC) layer ID information of the discovery message [Par. 0044-0045 discloses the remote measures the quality of discovery message of PC5 based on physical layer ID and discovery message includes layer 1 and Layer 2 ID, Fig 3. Ref 200-202 and 204].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising based on the predetermined signal being a discovery message, the remote UE performs measurement even if only physical layer ID information is successfully decoded from the physical layer ID information and medium access control (MAC) layer ID information of the discovery message as disclosed by Sorrentino into the teaching of Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726] and Huang [US 2020/0221467]. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726], Huang [US 2020/0221467] and Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Miao [US 2023/0232201].
As claim 7, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726], Huang [US 2020/0221467] and Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860] fail to fully disclose what Miao [US 2023/0232201] discloses a sidelink control channel (SCI) related to the discovery message includes only a source ID from the source ID and a destination ID [Par. 0055 disclose discovery only includes source identifier which related to SCI is broadcasted to the UE].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising a sidelink control channel (SCI) related to the discovery message includes only a source ID from the source ID and a destination ID as disclosed by Miao into the teaching of Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726], Huang [US 2020/0221467] and Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860]. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claim 8, Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726], Huang [US 2020/0221467] and Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860] fail to fully disclose what Miao [US 2023/0232201] discloses the measurement is related to sidelink reference signal received power (SD-RSRP) [Par. 0037 discloses SD-RSRP].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising a the measurement is related to sidelink reference signal received power (SD-RSRP) as disclosed by Maio into the teaching of Thyagarajan [US 2018/0255505], Wang [US 2024/0179726], Huang [US 2020/0221467] and Sorrentino [US 2016/0112860]. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
Conclusion
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 STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights