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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/1/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25-28, 39 & 44 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 14, 18, 26-28, 39 & 44 have been amended.
Rejections to claims 1 & 44 under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn based on amendments to these claims.
Rejections to claims 1 & 44 under 35 USC 112(b) have been introduced based on amendments to these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 5/1/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 & 44 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to these claims to eliminate “second logical channels” resolves the issue of “second logical channels” not being disclosed in the current application specification. The rejections of claims 1 & 44 under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25-28, 39 & 44 are patentable due to amendments and arguments made to claims 1, 2, 14, 18, 26-28, 39 & 44. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that, per 35 U.S.C. 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained 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 (see §MPEP 2141).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Loehr in view of Lee2, Lee and Jheng fail to disclose or teach of the features "wherein the UE is to set up logical channels and radio bearers for a transmission of data from the UE to the one or more receiving entities based on an origin of the data," "wherein one or more first signal bearers, which are associated with the one or more transmitting entities, serve traffic classified to fulfill a first requirement including a Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR), and one or more second signal bearers, which are associated with the one or more transmitting entities, serve traffic classified to fulfill a second requirement including a non-Guaranteed Bit Rate(non-GBR)," and "wherein the UE is configured with a known identification, like a UE ID, of the one or more transmitting entities so as to allow differentiating traffic from different ones of the transmitting entities" because the cited references fail to provide the differentiation of traffic by means of logical channels/signal bearers or the identification information about the remote UEs for allowing a receiving entity to differentiate traffic received from the respective remote UEs, and do not teach the internal protocol stack architecture where the UE configures its own logical channels and radio bearers specifically based on whether the traffic is its own or belongs to a remote entity. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that the amended claim language only requires that the UE setup logical channels and radio bearers for transmission of data from the UE to the one or more receiving entities, and does not claim further details on the internal protocol stack architecture of the UE. Loehr discloses of a relay UE setting up logical channels and radio bearers for transmission of data from the relay UE to an eNB for supporting traffic from either the relay UE or remote UEs (see Figs 3 & 4, [0025], [0038], [0042], [0273], [0275] & [0288]). Further, Loehr discloses that the relay UE may be configured with different scheduling RNTIs (scheduling identifications) for exchanging data from different remote UEs. For example, an R-C-RNTI identification may be assigned to the relay UE to support dynamic traffic scheduling to certain remote UE and an R-SPS-C-RNTI identification may be assigned to the relay UE to support semi-persistent traffic scheduling to a different remote UEs, allowing differentiated traffic from different remote UEs (see ([0273]-[0278]).
Applicant argues that Loehr focuses on a single remote scheduling ID to cover all remote data and does not teach differentiating between multiple, distinct remote UEs using their specific IDs at the relay UE level. Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that, as discussed above, Loehr [0273]-[0278] discloses use of different RNTIs (i.e. different identifications) for different remote UEs used by the relay UE.
Applicant argues that Lee2 teaches of GBR and non-GBR bearers for a single terminal to a network but fails to teach of an architecture where a relay UE maintains a distinct set of GBR and non-GBR bearers that are specifically associated with external transmitting entities, while Loehr lacks any teaching of bit-rate requirement classifications (GBR/non-GBR) for relayed data. Examiner notes that the current amended claim language only requires that the UE be configured with identifications for different transmitting entities to allow for differentiating traffic and does not require that there be transmitting entities associated with GBR traffic classification and different transmitting entities with non-GBR traffic classification. Examiner also notes that Lee2 is only used to teach that one or more signal bearers of one or more transmitting entities can be either GBR or non-GBR. Thus, it is moot that Lee2 fails to disclose of a distinct set of GBR for certain transmitting entities and a distinct set of non-GBR bearers for different transmitting entities. Examiner further notes that Loehr is not used to teach of bit-rate requirement classifications (GBR/non-GBR), because Lee2 teaches of bit-rate requirement classifications (GBR/non-GBR), and thus it is moot that Loehr lacks teaching of bit-rate requirement classifications (GBR/non-GBR).
Based on the above discussion, examiner maintains that Loehr in view of Lee2 disclose all of the limitations of amended claim 1, and thus examiner maintains rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 44, applicant submits that this claim is patentable due to similar amendments and arguments as made for claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner maintains rejection of claim 44 under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25-28 & 39, applicant submits that these claims are patentable due to amendments and arguments made for claim 1 and due to their dependency on claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner maintains rejection of claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25-28 & 39 under 35 USC 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 & 44 recite “wherein, each of the first and second logical channel is associated with or mapped to one or more first signal bearers to serve traffic classified to fulfill a first requirement, including a Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR) and one or more second signal bearers to serve traffic classified to fulfill a second requirement, including a non-Guaranteed Bit Rate (non-GBR)”. According to the current application specification (see page 18, lines 5-10) a first signal bearer serves traffic classified as GBR and a second signal bearer serves traffic classified as non-GBR. Traffic may be considered either data traffic or signaling traffic. Thus, the examiner is interpreting a signal bearer as a bearer that can carry either data traffic, or signaling traffic, or both.
Several of the claims in the present application recite limitations in the format of “A and/or B”. For the purpose of this review, the examiner is interpreting these claims as either A, or B, or A and B.
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 & 44 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 claims 1 & 44, these claims recite “wherein the UE is configured with a known identification, like a UE ID, of the one or more transmitting entities so as to allow differentiating traffic from different ones of the transmitting entities”, which is interpreted as the UE being configured with a single identification or UE ID of the one or more transmitting entities. Page 22, lines 11-15 disclose that the relay UE is to be configured by a RAN with multiple identifications, like respective UE IDs, served by the relay UE, which would be required in order to allow differentiating traffic from different ones of the transmitting entities as required by the amended claim language. Thus, the current amended claim language is confusing because a single identification, or UE ID, representing all of the one or more transmitting entities would not allow differentiating traffic from different transmitting entities of the one or more transmitting entities, but would allow differentiating traffic from different groups of one or more transmitting entities where each group of one or more transmitting entities have a different identification.
Further, the phrase “like a UE ID” renders these claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the word “like” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this limitation in these claims as “wherein the UE is configured with a known identifications (ID) for a group of one or more transmitting entities so as to allow differentiating traffic from different groups of one or more transmitting entities”.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 26-28, 39 & 44 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loehr et al. (US 2018/0069618)(herein after “Loehr”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2012/0044805)(herein after “Lee2”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 44, Loehr discloses a user device (UE) for a wireless communication network, and a method for operating a user device (UE) for a wireless communication network, wherein the UE is to act as a relaying entity so as to provide, and the method comprises providing, functionality to support connectivity between one or more transmitting entities and one or more receiving entities of the wireless communication network (Fig 11, [0260] & [0267] disclose a relay user equipment, for a ProSe wireless communication network, capable of serving as a relay. [0221] discloses that a ProSe UE-to-network relay can provide functionality to support UL unicast traffic from a Remote UE (i.e. transmitting entity) to a network (i.e. receiving entity).),
wherein the UE is to set up, and the method comprises setting up, logical channels and radio bearers for a transmission of data from the UE to the one or more receiving entities based on an origin of the data (Fig 3, [0025] & [0038] disclose a UE-side MAC entity with logical channels for transfer of control and user plane data. Fig 4 & [0043] disclose a plurality of radio bearers for transmission of data from a relay UE to receiving entities eNB, S-GW, P-GW and the Internet. [0042] discloses that radio bearers are mapped onto logical channels. [0273] & [0288] disclose a relay UE assisting in the setup of RNTIs for transmission of data from the relay UE to a receiving eNodeB with one RNTI configured to handle resource assignments to exchange relay data (i.e. data originating from the relay UE) and another RNTI configured to handle resource assignments to exchange data from a remote UE (i.e. data originating from the remote UE). [0275] discloses that an RNTI is associated with one or more logical channels for carrying data. Thus, disclosed is a relay UE assisting in the scheduling of RNTIs that setup logical channels which have radio bearers mapped onto the logical channels, for transmission of data from the relay UE to a receiving eNodeB based on whether the data originated from the relay UE or originated from a remote UE.); and
wherein, when data is available at one or more of the logical channels, the UE is to request resources for the transmission from the UE to the one or more receiving entities, using a buffer status report (BSR) ([0106] discloses when a BSR is triggered, a UE can send a scheduling request for allocation of resources between the UE and a receiving entity. [0099] discloses that a BSR may be triggered when data arrives for a logical channel. [0095]-[0097] disclose that an individual logical channel BSR may be triggered, or may be triggered based on LCG IDs #0-3.); and
wherein the UE is configured with a known identification, like a UE ID, of the one or more transmitting entities so as to allow differentiating traffic from different ones of the transmitting entities ([0273]-[0278] disclose that a relay UE may be configured by an eNodeB with different scheduling RNTIs (scheduling identifications) for exchanging data from the relay UE and exchanging data from different remote UEs. Different RNTIs may be configured at the relay UE to support dynamic scheduling, semi-persistent scheduling and multicast scheduling for traffic from the relay UE and from different remote UEs to allow for differentiating traffic from different remote UEs. For example, an R-C-RNTI identification may be assigned to the relay UE to support dynamic traffic scheduling to a remote UE (e.g. a first transmitting entity) and an R-SPS-C-RNTI identification may be assigned to the relay UE to support semi-persistent traffic scheduling to a different remote UE (e.g. a second transmitting entity).).
Loehr fails to disclose but Lee2 teaches wherein one or more first signal bearers, which are associated with the one or more transmitting entities, serve traffic classified to fulfill a first requirement, including a Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR) and one or more second signal bearers, which are associated with the one or more transmitting entities, serve traffic classified to fulfill a second requirement, including a non-Guaranteed Bit Rate (non-GBR) (Fig 6 & [0054] discloses multiple logical channel groups wherein each of the multiple logical channel groups may include (i.e. be associated with) one or more EPS bearers (i.e. signal bearers) that may be GBR bearers or non-GBR bearers. A first logical group may be associated with one or more first EPS bearers that are GBR bearers, and a second logical group may be associated with one or more second EPS bearers that are non-GBR bearers. Figs 1 & 3 and [0032]-[0033] & [0045] disclose that the first and second EPS bearers may be associated with connections to UEs that may communicate through a reverse link (RL) from the UEs to eNBs (i.e. the first and second EPS bearers are associated with one or more transmitting entities).).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a user device (UE) for a wireless communication network, and a method for operating a user device (UE) for a wireless communication network, wherein the UE is to act as a relaying entity so as to provide, and the method comprises providing, functionality to support connectivity between one or more transmitting entities and one or more receiving entities of the wireless communication network, wherein the UE is to set up, and the method comprises setting up, logical channels and radio bearers for a transmission of data from the UE to the one or more receiving entities based on an origin of the data, as discloses by Loehr, wherein one or more first signal bearers, which are associated with the one or more transmitting entities, serve traffic classified to fulfill a first requirement including a Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR) and one or more second signal bearers, which are associated with the one or more transmitting entities, serve traffic classified to fulfill a second requirement including a non-Guaranteed Bit Rate (non-GBR), as taught by Lee2. The motivation to do so would be to have a relay UE, and a method for operating a relay UE, that can setup first logical channels for sending traffic originating from a remote UE to an eNB, and second logical channels for sending traffic originating at the relay UE to the eNB, wherein each first and second logical channels are associated with both GBR classified EPS bearers and non-GBR classified EPS bearers, in order to provide a desired quality of service for different types of traffic (e.g. GBR classified EPS bearers for voice traffic and non-GBR classified EPS bearers for delay non-sensitive signaling traffic) originating at the remote UE or originating at the relay UE.
Regarding Claim 2, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein the UE is to setup the logical channels, and to group the logical channels into one or more groups of logical channels (LCGs) (Fig 3, [0025] & [0038] disclose a UE-side MAC entity with logical channels for transfer of control and user plane data. [0273] & [0288] disclose a relay UE assisting in the setup of RNTIs for transmission of data from the relay UE to an eNodeB with one RNTI configured to handle resource assignments to exchange relay data (i.e. data originating from the relay UE) and another RNTI configured to handle resource assignments to exchange data from a remote UE (i.e. data originating from the remote UE). [0275] discloses that an RNTI is associated with one or more logical channels for carrying data. [0039] discloses that logical channels may grouped and associated with one of four LCGs with LCG IDs 0-3. Thus, disclosed is a relay UE assisting in the scheduling of RNTIs that setup a plurality of logical channels for transmission of data, based on whether the data originated at the relay UE (e.g. second logical channels) or originated at a remote UE (e.g. first logical channels), from a relay UE to an eNodeB, and the logical channels can be grouped into LCGs.).
Regarding Claim 13, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein the UE is to associate a radio bearer with a specific UE or with a combined set of UEs using an identification received via a receiving entity ([0058] discloses allocation of transmission resources through RNTIs that identify an intended UE. [0275] discloses that an RNTI is associated with one or more logical channels for carrying data. [0042] discloses that radio bearers are mapped onto logical channels. [0273] discloses that the radio resource scheduling through RNTIs may be performed by an eNodeB.).
Regarding Claim 14, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 13.
Loehr discloses wherein responsive to receiving the identification, the UE is to associate a particular packet data unit (PDU) session supported by the radio bearer with a corresponding Quality of Service (QoS) profile or link ID or service type for the one or more transmitting entities ([0273] & [0288] disclose an eNodeB scheduling radio resources through an RNTI for transmission of data from a relay UE to the eNodeB where the RNTI is configured to handle resource assignments to exchange data from a Remote UE transmitting entity (i.e. data originating from the Remote UE transmitting entity). [0063] discloses the process by which a UE creates MAC PDUs (i.e. a PDU session) is based on an LCP procedure that ensures the UE satisfies QoS of each radio bearer configured in the radio resources allocated.).
Regarding Claim 16, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein data originating at the one or more transmitting entities comprises data originating at one of the transmitting entities, or data originating at a plurality of the transmitting entities ([0240] discloses that a relay UE may relay remote data originating from one or more remote UEs.).
Regarding Claim 18, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein the UE is configured with the set up of the logical channels with the origin of the data ([0273] & [0288] disclose a relay UE configured (i.e. setup) by an eNodeB through scheduling of RNTIs associated with the transmission of data from the relay UE to an eNodeB receiving entity with one RNTI configured to explicitly indicate resource assignments to exchange relay data (i.e. data originating from the relay UE and not originating from a Remote UE transmitting entity) and another RNTI configured to explicitly indicate resource assignments to exchange data from a Remote UE transmitting entity (i.e. data originating from a Remote UE transmitting entity). [0275] discloses that an RNTI is associated with one or more logical channels for carrying data. [0039] discloses that logical channels may grouped and associated with one of four LCGs with LCG IDs 0-3. [0041] discloses that RRC communication between a UE and an eNodeB covers all procedures related to radio resource configuration (e.g. RNTI, logical channel, LCG, configuration). Thus, disclosed is a relay UE configured by an eNodeB through RRC messaging including an RNTI associating one or more logical channels, or LCGs or radio bearers, explicitly indicating which RNTIs/logical channels/LCGs/radio bearers are associated with data originating from the relay UE (i.e. not originating from a remote UE transmitting entity) and which RNTIs/logical channels/LCGs/radio bearers are associated with data originating from a remote UE.), or preconfigured with the set up of the logical channels with the origin of the data ([0063] discloses that the process by which UEs create MAC PDUs based on radio resources allocated (i.e. set up) is fully standardized. Fig 3 & [0025] discloses that logical channels are standardized in the 3GPP TS 36.321 standards. Fig 4 & [0086] disclose that bearer mapping to logical channels is defined in the 3GPP TS 36.331 standards. [0095] discloses that LCGs are defined in the 3GPP TS 36.321 standards. [0140] discloses that the 3GPP Rel-10 standards defines functionality for activating a relay node. Thus, all of the procedures for configuration and association of one or more logical channels (i.e. one or more first and second logical channels), one or more LCGs or the radio bearers with data, originating from a transmitting remote UE, from a relay UE to an eNodeB in response to activating relay functionality at the relay UE is standardized and can be preconfigured or embedded into the relay UE.).
Regarding Claim 19, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein the UE is to signal which logical channel and/or which LCG and/or radio bearer is associated with data originating at the transmitting entities, and which LCG or radio bearer is not associated with data originating at the transmitting entities ([0140] discloses a relay UE can send a scheduling request to an eNB for transmission resources. [0041] discloses that RRC communication between a UE and an eNodeB covers all procedures related to radio resource configuration (e.g. a scheduling request). [0273] & [0288] disclose a relay UE can assist in radio resource scheduling one RNTI configured to explicitly indicate resource assignments to exchange relay data (i.e. data originating from the relay UE and not originating from a remote UE transmitting entity) and another RNTI configured to explicitly indicate resource assignments to exchange data from a remote UE transmitting entity (i.e. data originating from a remote UE transmitting entity). [0275] discloses that an RNTI is associated with one or more logical channels for carrying data. [0039] discloses that logical channels may grouped and associated with one of four LCGs with LCG IDs 0-3. Thus, disclosed is that a relay UE can provide assistance in the scheduling of RNTIs, through RRC signaling, that associate specific RNTIs/logical channels/LCGs/radio bearers for data originating at a remote UE transmitting entity and different RNTIs/logical channels/LCGs/radio bearers for data originating at the relay UE (i.e. not originating at a Remote UE transmitting entity).).
Regarding Claim 26, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein the UE is configured or preconfigured with a priority for each of the logical channels and/or radio bearers ([0065] discloses a PBR configured for each logical channel providing a priority to transmit data in order of importance.); and
a prioritization procedure ([0063] discloses an LCP procedure.), to cause the UE to initially perform scheduling resources for data originating at the one or more transmitting entities, followed by scheduling resources for data originating at the relaying entity ([0317] discloses an LCP procedure that first assigns radio resources to a remote UE (i.e. transmitting entity) and then to the relay logical channel.), or initially perform scheduling resources for data originating at the relaying entity, followed by scheduling resources for data originating at the one or more transmitting entities ([0317] discloses a relay UE prioritizing a remote logical channel over a relay logical channel, or vice versa. In the vice versa scenario, the relay UE would be prioritizing the relay logical channel over the remote logical channel, and thus would initially perform scheduling of resources for the data originating at the relay UE followed by scheduling resources for data originating at the remote UE transmitting entity.).
Regarding Claim 27, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein the data comprises user-plane (UP) data, and the logical channels comprise dedicated traffic channels (DTCHs) ([0038] discloses traffic logical channels that carry user plane data and the traffic logical channels (e.g. first and second logical channels) are dedicated traffic channels (DTCHs).), and/or the data comprises control-plane (CP) data, and the logical channels comprise dedicated control channels (DCCHs) or common control channels (CCCHs) ([0038] discloses control logical channels that carry control data (e.g. first and second logical channels that carry control data) and the control logical channels comprise a dedicated control channel (DCCH) and a common control channel (CCCH).).
Regarding Claim 28, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein the transmitting entities and the receiving entities comprise any one of a further UE, a relaying entity and a network entity (Fig 11 & [0221] disclose a transmitting entity comprising a remote UE (i.e. a further UE), and a receiving entity comprising an eNB network entity, and a relay entity comprising Relay UE.).
Regarding Claim 39, Loehr in view of Lee2 disclose a wireless communication network, comprising one or more relaying entities comprising the user device (UE) of Claim 1.
Loehr discloses one or more radio access network, RAN, entities for a wireless communication network (Fig 11, [0260] & [0267] disclose a ProSe wireless communication network, comprising a relay user equipment (relay UE) and an eNB RAN entity.), wherein the one or more RAN entities are to communicate with one or more remote user devices (UEs) of the wireless communication network via the one or more relaying entities providing functionality to support connectivity between the one or more RAN entities and the one or more remote UEs ([0209] discloses an eNB RAN entity that can communicate with and control a UE to act as a relay entity. Fig 11 & [0221] discloses a Relay UE entity that provides functionality to support unicast services for remote UEs by relaying unicast traffic between the remote UE and the network (eNb).).
Claim 22 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loehr et al. (US 2018/0069618) in view of Lee et al. (US 2012/0044805)(herein after “Lee2”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0206147)(herein after “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 22, Loehr in view of Lee2 disclose the user device (UE) of Claim 1.
Loehr discloses data originating at the transmitting entities ([0273] discloses a relay UE assisting in the setup of RNTIs for transmission of data from the relay UE to an eNodeB with an RNTI configured to handle resource assignments to exchange data originating from a transmitting remote UE (i.e. a transmitting entity).
Loehr fails to disclose wherein the UE is to trigger a BSR responsive to an amount of data reaching or exceeding a threshold.
However, Lee teaches wherein the UE is to trigger a BSR responsive to an amount of data reaching or exceeding a threshold ([0011] discloses a UE triggering a BSR when an amount of data available for transmission is equal to or larger than a threshold for a period of time. [0135] discloses that the threshold may be defined as a number of bytes (e.g. a size or percentage of the size of a transmission buffer).)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the user device (UE) of Claim 1, with data originating at the transmitting entities, as disclosed by Loehr in view of Lee2, wherein the UE is to trigger a BSR responsive to an amount of data reaching or exceeding a threshold, as further taught by Lee. The motivation to do so would be to have a relay UE that can trigger a BSR when data from a remote UE, that needs to be relayed by the relay UE to an eNB, reaches a threshold for a period of time in order to enable the eNB to optimize UL resource allocations by only allocating logical channel resources for the relay UE when there is data to relay from the remote UE.
Claim 25 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loehr et al. (US 2018/0069618) in view of Lee et al. (US 2012/0044805)(herein after “Lee2”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jheng et al. (US 2018/0279168)(herein after “Jheng”).
Regarding Claim 25, Loehr in view of Lee2 discloses the user device (UE) of claim 1.
Loehr discloses wherein the UE is to map data originating at the transmitting entities and being associated with one or more special requirements to a further logical channel associated with the one or more special requirements ([0273] & [0288] disclose a relay UE can assist in radio resource scheduling an RNTI configured to explicitly indicate resource assignments to exchange data from a Remote UE transmitting entity (i.e. data originating from a Remote UE transmitting entity). [0275] discloses that an RNTI is associated with one or more logical channels for carrying data. [0039] discloses that logical channels may grouped and associated with one of four LCGs with LCG IDs 0-3. [0042] discloses that radio bearers are mapped onto logical channels. [0044] discloses that bearers can be associated with special QoS requirements such as for supporting streaming video traffic. Thus, disclosed is a relay UE that can map data originating from a Remote UE transmitting entity through an RNTI with further logical channels or LCGs that have radio bearers, associated with special QoS requirements, mapped to the further logical channels.
Loehr fails to disclose wherein the special requirements include low latency and/or high reliability.
However, Jheng further teaches wherein the special requirements include low latency and/or high reliability (Fig 7 & [0070] disclose URLLC data transmitted on logical channels between a UE and a gNB that has QoS requirements for high reliability and low latency.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the user device (UE) of Claim 1, wherein the UE is to map data originating at the transmitting entities and being associated with one or more special requirements to a further logical channel associated with the one or more special requirements, as disclosed by Loehr in view of Lee2, wherein the special requirements include low latency and/or high reliability, as further taught by Jheng. The motivation to do so would be to have a relay UE that can setup first logical channels for sending traffic originating from a remote UE to an eNB, wherein the UE maps data originating at the remote UE that is associated with one or more special requirements including low latency and/or high reliability, such as URLLC data, to a further logical channel associated with special QoS requirements, in order to provide a desired quality of service for the URLLC type of traffic originating at the remote UE.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Burbidge et al (US 10602550) discloses Layer 2 Relay Protocols and Mobility Relay Method.
Pan et al. (US 2022/0007445) discloses a Method and Apparatus for Establishing Sidelink Radio Bearer for UE-to-UE Relay Communication in a Wireless Communication System.
Tenny et al. (US 2018/0279202) discloses a System and Method for Dynamic Data Relaying.
Kim et al. (US 2022/0304099) discloses and Operation Method of Relay UE for Remote UE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights