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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2024 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 3 is 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. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the identification data for identifying at least one of the first UE and the second UE,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 instead recites “identification data for identifying the second UE for the E2E communication,” and it is unclear if “the identification data for identifying at least one of the first UE and the second UE” is intended to be the same or different from “identification data for identifying the second UE for the E2E communication.” Claim 3 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “the identification data for identifying at least one of the first UE and the second UE” as potentially being the same or different from “identification data for identifying the second UE for the E2E communication.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 20-23, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenidge et al. (US 2022/0014265, Greenidge hereinafter). Regarding claims 1 and 29, Greenidge teaches a method and an apparatus of wireless communication at a network entity (Satellite (e.g., satellite 210); Greenidge; Figs. 1-14; [0085]-[0086], [0152]-[0153]), comprising: memory (The satellite may be comprised of memory; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0152]-[0153]); and at least one processor coupled to the memory (The satellite may be comprised of a processor coupled to the memory; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0152]-[0153]) and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from a first user equipment (UE), a communication signal for an end-to-end (E2E) communication with a second UE (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, a satellite may receive a communication signal from a first user device 225 (i.e., a first UE) for a second user device 230 (i.e., a second UE). Such a communication signal may be interpreted as being for an end-to-end (E2E) communication with a second UE; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0085]-[0086]), wherein the communication signal comprises identification data for identifying the second UE for the E2E communication (As can be seen in at least step 415, the satellite may identify an intended destination as is described in connection with step 315 of Fig. 3. The description of step 315 discusses decoding a receiver address included in the communication, which may be interpreted as identification data for identifying the second UE for the E2E communication; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0085]-[0086]); route the communication signal through the network entity, wherein the communication signal bypasses ground-based feeder links (As can be seen in at least step(s) 420-435, the satellite may route the communication signal such that it bypasses ground-based feeder links; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0086]-[0087]); and transmit, to the second UE, the communication signal to enable the E2E communication between the first UE and the second UE (As can be seen in at least step(s) 420-435, the satellite may transmit the communication to the second UE to enable the E2E communication between the first UE and the second UE; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0086]-[0087]). Regarding claim 2, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 1. Greenidge further teaches a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (The satellite may be comprised of a communications interface coupled to the processor, which may be interpreted as a transceiver; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0152], [0155]), wherein, to receive the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to receive the communication signal via the transceiver (Communication signals may be interpreted as being received via the transceiver; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0085]-[0086], [0152], [0155]), and wherein the E2E communication is a direct non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication (A communication such as that depicted between user devices 225 and 230 in at least Fig. 4 may be interpreted as a direct non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0085]-[0086], [0152], [0155]), and the network entity is a first satellite in a first NTN (The satellite (e.g., satellite 210) may be interpreted as a first satellite in a first NTN; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0085]-[0086], [0152], [0155]). Regarding claim 3, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 2. Greenidge further teaches to receive the communication signal from the first UE, the at least one processor is configured to receive the identification data for identifying at least one of the first UE and the second UE (As can be seen in at least step 415, the satellite may identify an intended destination as is described in connection with step 315 of Fig. 3. The description of step 315 discusses decoding a receiver address included in the communication, which may be interpreted as identification data for identifying the second UE for the E2E communication. The satellite may thus be interpreted as receiving the identification data; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0085]-[0086]), and to transmit the communication signal to the second UE, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the identification data for identifying at least one of the first UE and the second UE (The communication comprising the identification data is described as being relayed, which may be interpreted as transmitting the identification data; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 4, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 2. Greenidge further teaches the network entity is a first network entity, and wherein, to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the second UE, the communication signal via a second network entity, wherein the second network entity is a second satellite in the first NTN (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, the satellite (e.g., satellite 210) may transmit the communication signal via at least a second satellite in the first NTN; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0085]-[0087]), and the first network entity and the second network entity are connected via an inter-node link (The satellites in Fig. 4 may be interpreted as being connected via an inter-node link; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 5, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 2. Greenidge further teaches the network entity is equipped with a set of core network functions (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, a satellite may route a communication between a first user device and a second user device based at least on receiver address information, which may be interpreted as using a set of core network functions for such routing; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0073], [0076], [0085]-[0087]), and wherein, to route the communication signal through the network entity, the at least one processor is configured to: route the communication signal through the set of core network functions of the network entity (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, a satellite may route a communication between a first user device and a second user device based at least on receiver address information, which may be interpreted as using a set of core network functions for such routing; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0073], [0076], [0085]-[0087]), wherein the set of core network functions includes at least one of a user plane function (UPF), an access and mobility management function (AMF), and a session management function (SMF) (Paragraph [0060] of Applicant’s specification states that a User Plane Function (UPF) “supports packet routing, packet forwarding, and other functions.” As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, a satellite may route a communication between a first user device and a second user device based at least on receiver address information. Such routing may be interpreted as supporting routing, forwarding, and/or other functions, and thus at least such functionality may be interpreted as at least a user plane function (UPF); Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0073], [0076], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 7, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 2. Greenidge further teaches the network entity is equipped with an onboard relay function (As can be seen in at least step(s) 420-435, the satellite may perform a relay function and may thus be interpreted as being equipped with an onboard relay function; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0086]-[0087]), and wherein, to route the communication signal through the network entity, the at least one processor is configured to: route the communication signal through the onboard relay function of the network entity (The satellite may be interpreted as relaying the communication signal by routing the communication signal through the onboard relay function of the network entity; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0086]-[0087]). Regarding claim 20, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 2. Greenidge further teaches the network entity is equipped with a set of radio access network functions (A satellite that performs communication routing functionality such as that discussed in at least Fig. 4 may be interpreted as being equipped with a set of radio access network functions; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0085]-[0087]), and wherein, to route the communication signal through the network entity, the at least one processor is configured to: route the communication signal through the set of radio access network functions of the network entity (A satellite that performs communication routing functionality such as that discussed in at least Fig. 4 may be interpreted as being equipped with a set of radio access network functions. Performing such routing may also be interpreted as routing the communication signal through the set of radio access network functions of the network entity; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 21, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 20. Greenidge further teaches the set of radio access network functions includes at least a part of functions of an onboard access network node (A satellite that performs communication routing functionality such as that discussed in at least Fig. 4 may be interpreted as being equipped with a set of radio access network functions that includes at least a part of functions of an onboard access network node; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claims 22 and 30, Greenidge teaches a method and an apparatus of wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (User device (e.g., user device 225); Greenidge; Figs. 1-14; [0085]-[0086], [0183]-[0184]), comprising: memory (Devices may be comprised of memory; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0152]-[0153], [0183]-[0184]); and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Devices may be comprised of a processor coupled to the memory; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0152]-[0153], [0183]-[0184]) and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: generate identification data identifying a second UE for an end-to-end (E2E) communication (As can be seen in at least step 405 of Fig. 4, the user device (i.e., the first UE) may generate a communication for a second user device (e.g., user device 230). As can be seen in at least step 415, the satellite may identify an intended destination as is described in connection with step 315 of Fig. 3. The description of step 315 discusses decoding a receiver address included in the communication, which may be interpreted as identification data for identifying the second UE for the E2E communication. The user device may thus be interpreted as generating identification data identifying a second UE for an end-to-end (E2E) communication; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0085]-[0086]); and transmit, to a network entity, a communication signal comprising the identification data (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, the user device 225 (i.e., the first UE) may transmit the communication signal comprising the identification data to a satellite; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0086]-[0087]) for the network entity to route the communication signal to the second UE to enable the E2E communication with the second UE (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, the satellite may route the communication signal to the second device (i.e., the second UE); Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0086]-[0087]), wherein the communication signal bypasses ground-based feeder links (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, the communication signal may bypass ground-based feeder links; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0086]-[0087]). Regarding claim 23, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 22. Greenidge further teaches a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Devices may be comprised of a communications interface coupled to the processor, which may be interpreted as a transceiver; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0152], [0155]), wherein, to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the communication signal via the transceiver (Communication signals may be interpreted as being transmitted via the transceiver; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0085]-[0086], [0152], [0155]), and wherein the E2E communication is a direct non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication (A communication such as that depicted between user devices 225 and 230 in at least Fig. 4 may be interpreted as a direct non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0085]-[0086], [0152], [0155]), and the network entity is a first satellite in a first NTN (The satellite (e.g., satellite 210) may be interpreted as a first satellite in a first NTN; Greenidge; Figs. 12-14; [0085]-[0086], [0152], [0155]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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(s) 6, 8-19, and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenidge et al. (US 2022/0014265, Greenidge hereinafter) in view of Li (US 2023/0261826, US publication corresponding to WO 2022/082754 provided by Applicant, Li hereinafter). Regarding claim 6, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 2. However, Greenidge does not specifically disclose to receive the communication signal for the E2E communication, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from the first UE via a sidelink interface, the communication signal, and wherein, to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the second UE via the sidelink interface, the communication signal Li teaches to receive the communication signal for the E2E communication, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from the first UE via a sidelink interface, the communication signal (A relay may receive a communication signal from a terminal device (i.e., the first UE) via a PC5 (i.e., sidelink) interface; Li; Figs. 1a-1c and 8; [0011]-[0013], [0271]-[0273]), and wherein, to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the second UE via the sidelink interface, the communication signal (A relay may transmit a communication signal to another terminal device (i.e., the second UE) via a PC5 (i.e., sidelink) interface; Li; Figs. 1a-1c and 8; [0011]-[0013], [0271]-[0273]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 8, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 7. Greenidge further teaches receiving the identification data (As can be seen in at least step 415, the satellite may identify an intended destination as is described in connection with step 315 of Fig. 3. The description of step 315 discusses decoding a receiver address included in the communication; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0076], [0085]-[0087]). However, Greenidge does not specifically disclose to receive the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: receive the identification data via an identification layer. Greenidge further teaches to receive the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: receive the identification data via an identification layer (Upper layers are described as providing unicast connection profile (unicast link profile) information, which may include one or more of the following information: a V2X service type; an application layer and a layer 2 identifier L2 ID of a source terminal device; an application layer identifier and a layer 2 identifier L2 ID of a destination terminal device; a network layer protocol corresponding to the unicast connection; and a group of PC5 quality of service flow indicators (PFIs) associated with each V2X service type, and a group of QoS parameters associated with each PFI. The V2X service type may include a provider service identifier (PSID) or an intelligent transportation system application identifier (ITS-AID). Such upper layers may thus be interpreted as comprising an identification layer, and identification data may be interpreted as being received via such an identification layer; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 9, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 8. Greenidge further teaches the identification data is based on one or more of: an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the second UE, a quality of service (QoS) flow, a radio bearer (RB), a logical channel (LCH), a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI), a peer UE’s location, a header of the identification layer, or an identifier (ID) of the first UE (As can be seen in at least step 415, the satellite may identify an intended destination as is described in connection with step 315 of Fig. 3. The description of step 315 discusses decoding a receiver address included in the communication. Such an address is described as potentially being an IPv4 or IPv6 address, which may be interpreted as an IP address of the second UE; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0076], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 10, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 8. Greenidge further teaches the communication signal further includes first data on an access stratum (AS) layer (Communication protocols may include at least medium access control (MAC) layer protocols, and the MAC layer is listed as an example of the AS layer in at least claim 11; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]), wherein, to receive the communication signal for the E2E communication, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from the first UE, the first data via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface (The satellite may be interpreted as receiving communications from the first device (i.e., the first UE) via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087], [0152], [0155]), and wherein, to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the second UE, the first data via the UE-RAN air interface (The satellite may be interpreted as relaying/transmitting communications via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087], [0152], [0155]). Regarding claim 11, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 10. Greenidge further teaches the AS layer includes one or more of: a physical (PHY) layer, a medium access control (MAC) layer, a radio link control (RLC) layer, a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, or a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer (Communication protocols may include at least medium access control (MAC) layer protocols; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 12, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 10. Li further teaches the identification layer is higher than the AS layer in a set of layers (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, upper layers are higher than the AS layer; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127], [0144]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 13, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 12. Greenidge further teaches the communication signal further includes second data on a user layer (The communication transmitted to the second user device 230 may be interpreted as including at least data for the user device (i.e., second data), and such data may be interpreted as being on a user layer; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]), and wherein a first transmission of the second data comprises a set of first terminations at the first UE and the second UE (A communication transmitted from the first user device to the second user device may be interpreted as including a transmission (i.e., a first transmission) of data (i.e., the second data) that comprises a set of terminations at the first UE and the second UE; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 14, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 12. Greenidge further teaches the communication signal further includes third data on an E2E control layer for controlling an operation of the second UE (Communication protocols may include at least MAC layer protocols and IP layer protocols, which may be interpreted as third data on an E2E control layer for controlling an operation of the second UE. The communication transmitted to the second user device 230 may also be interpreted as including at least data for the user device (i.e., second data), and such data may also be interpreted as third data on an E2E control layer. The Examiner would also like to note that the claim language “for controlling an operation of the second UE” may be interpreted as an intended use; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0073], [0076], [0085]-[0087]), wherein a second transmission of the third data comprises a set of second terminations at the first UE and the second UE (A communication transmitted from the first user device to the second user device may be interpreted as including a transmission (i.e., a second transmission) of data (i.e., the third data) that comprises a set of terminations at the first UE and the second UE; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 15, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 8. Greenidge further teaches the communication signal further includes first data on a physical (PHY) layer and a medium access control (MAC) layer (The communication may include at least data on a physical layer and a MAC layer; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0049], [0085]-[0087]), wherein, to receive the communication signal for the E2E communication, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from the first UE, the first data via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface (The satellite may be interpreted as receiving communications from the first device (i.e., the first UE) via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087], [0152], [0155]), and wherein, to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the second UE, the first data via the UE-RAN air interface (The satellite may be interpreted as relaying/transmitting communications via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087], [0152], [0155]). Li further teaches the communication signal further includes first data on a radio link control (RLC) layer (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, communication may include at least first data on a radio link control (RLC) layer; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127], [0144]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 16, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 15. Li further teaches the identification layer is higher than the RLC layer in a set of layers (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, upper layers are higher than the RLC layer; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127], [0144]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 17, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 16. Greenidge further teaches wherein a first transmission of the second data comprises a set of first terminations at the first UE and the second UE (A communication transmitted from the first user device to the second user device may be interpreted as including a transmission (i.e., a first transmission) of data (i.e., the second data) that comprises a set of terminations at the first UE and the second UE; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]). Li further teaches the communication signal further includes second data on a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer on an E2E user plane (UP) (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, communication may include at least data (i.e., second data) on a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer on an user plane (UP), which may be interpreted as an E2E UP; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127], [0144]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 18, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 17. Greenidge further teaches to receive the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: receive the second data via the UE-RAN air interface or a sidelink (PC5) interface (The satellite may be interpreted as receiving communications from the first device (i.e., the first UE) via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087], [0152], [0155]). Regarding claim 19, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 17. Greenidge further teaches the communication signal further includes third data on an E2E control layer for controlling an operation of the second UE (Communication protocols may include at least MAC layer protocols and IP layer protocols, which may be interpreted as third data on an E2E control layer for controlling an operation of the second UE. The communication transmitted to the second user device 230 may also be interpreted as including at least data for the user device (i.e., second data), and such data may also be interpreted as third data on an E2E control layer. The Examiner would also like to note that the claim language “for controlling an operation of the second UE” may be interpreted as an intended use; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0073], [0076], [0085]-[0087]), wherein a second transmission of the third data comprises a set of second terminations at the first UE and the second UE (A communication transmitted from the first user device to the second user device may be interpreted as including a transmission (i.e., a second transmission) of data (i.e., the third data) that comprises a set of terminations at the first UE and the second UE; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 24, Greenidge teaches the limitations of claim 23. Greenidge further teaches wherein the identification data is based on one or more of: an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the second UE, a quality of service (QoS) flow, a radio bearer (RB), a logical channel (LCH), a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI), a peer UE’s location, a header of the identification layer, or an identifier (ID) of the first UE (As can be seen in at least step 415, the satellite may identify an intended destination as is described in connection with step 315 of Fig. 3. The description of step 315 discusses decoding a receiver address included in the communication. Such an address is described as potentially being an IPv4 or IPv6 address, which may be interpreted as an IP address of the second UE; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0073], [0076], [0085]-[0087]). However, Greenidge does not specifically disclose to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit the identification data via an identification layer. Li teaches to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit the identification data via an identification layer (Upper layers are described as providing unicast connection profile (unicast link profile) information, which may include one or more of the following information: a V2X service type; an application layer and a layer 2 identifier L2 ID of a source terminal device; an application layer identifier and a layer 2 identifier L2 ID of a destination terminal device; a network layer protocol corresponding to the unicast connection; and a group of PC5 quality of service flow indicators (PFIs) associated with each V2X service type, and a group of QoS parameters associated with each PFI. The V2X service type may include a provider service identifier (PSID) or an intelligent transportation system application identifier (ITS-AID). Such upper layers may thus be interpreted as comprising an identification layer, and identification data may be interpreted as being transmitted via such an identification layer; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 25, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 24. Greenidge further teaches the communication signal further includes first data on an access stratum (AS) layer (Communication protocols may include at least medium access control (MAC) layer protocols, and the MAC layer is listed as an example of the AS layer in at least claim 26; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]), and wherein, to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the network entity, the first data via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface (The first user device may be interpreted as transmitting communications to the satellite (i.e., the network entity) via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087], [0152], [0155]). Li further teaches the identification layer is higher than the AS layer in a set of layers (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, upper layers are higher than the AS layer; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127], [0144]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 26, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 25. Greenidge further teaches the AS layer includes one or more of: a physical (PHY) layer, a medium access control (MAC) layer, a radio link control (RLC) layer, a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, or a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer (Communication protocols may include at least medium access control (MAC) layer protocols; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087]). Regarding claim 27, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 24. Greenidge further teaches the communication signal further includes first data on a physical (PHY) layer and a medium access control (MAC) layer (The communication may include at least data on a physical layer and a MAC layer; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0049], [0085]-[0087]), wherein, to transmit the communication signal, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the network entity, the first data via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface (The first user device may be interpreted as relaying/transmitting communications via a UE-radio access network (RAN) (UE-RAN) air interface; Greenidge; Figs. 2-11; [0027], [0085]-[0087], [0152], [0155]). Li further teaches the communication signal further includes first data on a radio link control (RLC) layer (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, communication may include at least first data on a radio link control (RLC) layer; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127], [0144]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]). Regarding claim 28, Greenidge and Li teach the limitations of claim 27. Li further teaches the identification layer is higher than the RLC layer in a set of layers (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, upper layers are higher than the RLC layer; Li; Fig. 3; [0124]-[0127], [0144]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li regarding relaying communications with the teachings as in Greenidge regarding relaying communications. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality and flexibility of relay communication at least by using different protocol layers (Li; [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0019]-[0020], [0026]-[0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474