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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 16-35, the applicant argued, “…3GPP does not disclose that the communication response message includes or indicates any code for the remote UE to use to access the service…The Office Action appears to treat the ProSe application code disclosed at page 83 as if it were included in that communication response…3GPP’s discussion of the ProSe application code is not tied to or indicated by the relay’s communication response message…” on pages 7-9.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In pages 82-83, 106, and 119-120 3GPP clearly teaches send a fourth message to the second WTRU when it is determined that the second WTRU is allowed to access the PLMN, wherein the fourth message indicates that the second WTRU is authorized to use the service, and wherein the fourth message indicates a code to be used by the second WTRU to access the service (pages 82-83, 106, and 119-120: indicate remote UE is authorized to access the PLMN and provide/indicate ProSe application code).
Applicant’s arguments address 3GPP pages 82-83 and 106. However, the arguments do not address 3GPP pages 119-120. §6.35.2.4 states that 5G ProSe UE-to-Network Discovery parameters including Relay Service Code(s) are provided alongside Authorization to the Remote UE. §6.35.2.5 further describe the 5G ProSe UE-to-Network Discovery parameters. A Relay Service Code is specific to a ProSe UE-to-Network Relay. The Relay Service Code is provided to a Remote UE for acquiring connectivity services.
Regarding the procedures in 3GPP pages 82-83 and 106 on their own, the indication of a positive authorization result would still implicitly indicate the ProSe application code. If the ProSe application code for the Relay UE is preconfigured in the Remote UE, when the Remote UE receives positive authorization from the Relay UE it is being authorized to communicate via the Relay UE using the Relay UE’s ProSe application code.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A 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.
Claim(s) 16-20, 24-30, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP TR 23.752 V17.0.0 (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP”). Note: 3GPP was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 February 2024.
As to claim 16, 3GPP teaches a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (pages 133-134: UE-to-Network Relay) comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive, from a network node, a first message that indicates a network condition (page 134: receive system information of the cell);
send a second message to a second WTRU, wherein the second message indicates the network condition, and wherein the second message is a broadcast message (page 134: forward system/PLMN information in discovery message which is broadcast as shown on page 155);
receive a third message from the second WTRU, wherein the third message indicates a request for a service associated with the network condition, a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier (ID), and an ID associated with the first WTRU (pages 23 and 134: discoveree/remote UE selects PLMN and the relay that forwarded the system/PLMN information and sends, to the relay, PLMN selection, ProSe/relay ID, group ID, and process ID(s));
determine, based on the network condition, that the second WTRU is allowed to access a PLMN associated with the PLMN ID (page 106: determine if remote UE is authorized service according to the relay/5GC condition); and
send a fourth message to the second WTRU when it is determined that the second WTRU is allowed to access the PLMN, wherein the fourth message indicates that the second WTRU is authorized to use the service, and wherein the fourth message indicates a code to be used by the second WTRU to access the service (pages 82-83, 106, and 119-120: indicate remote UE is authorized to access the PLMN and provide/indicate ProSe application code).
As to claim 17, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to:
send a service request message to the network node, wherein the service request message requests an indication as to whether the network node allows an inbound roaming WTRU;
receive a service response message from the network node, wherein the service response message indicates that the network node allows the inbound roaming WTRU; and
send a connection request message to the network node if the PLMN allows the inbounding roaming WTRU (pages 80 and 106-107: send service request in roaming case, receive authentication, and send connection request).
As to claim 18, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to receive an authorization message from the network node, wherein the authorization message indicates that the first WTRU is to act as a relay for the service associated with the network condition (page 131: relay UE is relay).
As to claim 19, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to send a discovery response message to the second WTRU, wherein the discovery response message indicates an available PLMN, and wherein the available PLMN is the PLMN (page 134: send discovery response message to remote UE indicating available PLMN).
As to claim 20, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16, wherein the second message further indicates that the PLMN is an available PLMN and indicates the PLMN ID (page 134: send PLMN ID indicating PLMN is available).
As to claim 24, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16, wherein the first WTRU is a relay WTRU, wherein the second WTRU is a remote WTRU, wherein the first WTRU is associated with a first user, and wherein the second WTRU is associated with a second user (pages 23, 39, 82-83, and 134: relay UE and remote UE of different users).
As to claim 25, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to verify the network condition by determining if the PLMN or the network node permits access to an inbound roaming device associated with a disaster condition (pages 80 and 106-107: send service request in roaming case, receive authentication, and send connection request).
As to claim 26, claim 26 is rejected the same way as claim 16.
As to claim 27, claim 27 is rejected the same way as claim 17.
As to claim 28, claim 28 is rejected the same way as claim 18.
As to claim 29, claim 29 is rejected the same way as claim 19.
As to claim 30, claim 30 is rejected the same way as claim 20.
As to claim 32, claim 32 is rejected the same way as claim 24.
As to claim 33, claim 33 is rejected the same way as claim 25.
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Adachi et al. EP 3,270,659 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Adachi”). Note: Adachi was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 February 2024.
As to claim 21, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16.
Although 3GPP teaches “The first WTRU of claim 16,” 3GPP does not explicitly disclose “the processor…a threshold”.
However, Adachi teaches wherein the processor being configured to determine that the second WTRU is allowed to access the PLMN comprises the processor being configured to determine that a number of WTRUs accessing the PLMN is under a threshold (¶¶163-164: compare load level with threshold number of remote UEs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in 3GPP by including “the processor…a threshold” as taught by Adachi because it provides 3GPP’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of load balancing (Adachi, ¶¶163-164; see figure 13).
As to claim 31, claim 31 is rejected the same way as claim 21.
Claim(s) 22-23 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Apple “KI#3: Broadcast of disaster roaming indication” (hereinafter referred to as “Apple”). Note: Apple was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 February 2024.
As to claim 22, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine that the network condition has been cleared (pages 23,39, 82-83, and 134: determine current condition of PLMN).
Although 3GPP teaches “The first…been cleared,” 3GPP does not explicitly disclose “send a…longer available”.
However, Apple teaches determine that the network condition has been cleared (pages 1-2: determine condition of PLMN); and
send a fifth message to the second WTRU that indicates the service is no longer available (pages 1-2: broadcast “disaster roaming active” indicating the unavailable PLMN ID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in 3GPP by including “send a…longer available” as taught by Apple because it provides 3GPP’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of improving clarity of which PLMNs are available and which are experiencing disaster (Apple, pages 1-2).
As to claim 23, 3GPP teaches the first WTRU of claim 16.
Although 3GPP teaches “The first WTRU of claim 16,” 3GPP does not explicitly disclose “the PLMN…second provider”.
However, Apple teaches the PLMN is a first PLMN, wherein the network condition is a condition where access to a second PLMN is unavailable for at least an area, wherein the service is a minimization of service interruption service, wherein the first PLMN is associated with a first provider, and wherein the second PLMN is associated with a second provider (pages 1-2: PLMN D is subject to disaster, the service is MINT, and PLMN D subscriber roam (i.e. different provider) into PLMN A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in 3GPP by including “the PLMN…second provider” as taught by Apple because it provides 3GPP’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of improving clarity of which PLMNs are available and which are experiencing disaster (Apple, pages 1-2).
As to claim 34, claim 34 is rejected the same way as claim 22.
As to claim 35, claim 35 is rejected the same way as claim 23.
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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights