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 .
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 15 – 18 are 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the destination user equipment" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16 – 18 are also rejected for the same reason as they depend on the above rejected claim 15.
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.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (US 2022/0078755 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a method, comprising: determining, by a source user equipment (Fig. 18: End node #1 1802) comprising a processor (inherent in nodes/UEs), at least one first traffic parameter metric target corresponding to at least one protocol data unit associated with traffic directed to a destination user equipment (End node #2 1804) via a relay user equipment (paragraph 158: relay UEs), to result in at least one determined first traffic parameter metric target (paragraph 157-158: The start of a configured end-to-end transmission cycle could be dynamically indicated. For example, an indication of the start could be contained in DCI/SCI scheduling a transmission, or as an offset from a transmission of the DCI/SCI that schedules the transmission. Dynamic signaling could be transmitted from a source end node, such as end node #1 in FIG. 18. [0158] Information indicative of the start of end-to-end transmission could be broadcast or otherwise relayed to relay UEs at a next hop and ultimately to an end node…The relay UEs could use this information to determine the timing and resource(s) for transmission or listening based on the configuration of an end-to-end transmission cycle. Also described in paragraphs 155-156); based on the at least one determined first traffic parameter metric target, determining, by the source user equipment, a sidelink configuration comprising at least one second traffic parameter metric target (See Fig. 18; paragraphs 157-158; paragraph 155: UE-to-UE relay; paragraph 137: sidelink), corresponding to a relay communication link between the relay user equipment and the destination user equipment, usable by the relay user equipment to determine at least one relay resource to use for transmission of the at least one protocol data unit to the destination user equipment via the relay communication link (See Fig. 18; paragraphs 157-158; paragraph 155: UE-to-UE relay; paragraph 137: FIG. 16 is a block diagram illustrating an example of resource allocation by dynamic signaling. In this example, resource allocation/scheduling uses dynamic signaling such as downlink control information (DCI) and/or sidelink control information (SCI) to the relay UE(s) and end nodes. DCI may be used, for example, on Uu link between a network device as an end node and the relay UE(s) at a first hop. SCI may be used on sidelink (SL) between relay UE(s) or between relay UE(s) and the target UE as an end node at different hops); and transmitting, by the source user equipment to the relay user equipment, the sidelink configuration (paragraph 158: Information indicative of the start of end-to-end transmission could be broadcast or otherwise relayed to relay UEs at a next hop and ultimately to an end node. Also described in paragraph 137).
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one determined first traffic parameter metric target is an end-to-end latency criterion corresponding to a latency associated with at least one protocol data unit being transmitted by the source user equipment and being received by the destination user equipment (paragraph 175: resource allocation by higher-layer configuration could be used for steady traffic with a stronger latency requirement and no central scheduling capability, such as UE-to-network in uplink or UE-to-UE. Also described in paragraphs 157-158, 268).
Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one second traffic parameter metric target comprises a time parameter metric target (paragraph 160: A resource group is defined by time duration and is part of end-to-end cycle. Also described in paragraph 38: [0038] Resource allocation: To pre-configure communication resources in time and allocate resources to relaying data by UE relays in different hops to enable efficient multi-hop relay with lower latency and higher reliability—resource allocation).
Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the time parameter metric target comprises a relay resource occasion indication indicative of a relay resource occasion to transmit, by the relay user equipment to the destination user equipment, the at least one protocol data unit (paragraph 160: A resource group is defined by time duration and is part of end-to-end cycle. Also described in paragraph 38: [0038] Resource allocation: To pre-configure communication resources in time and allocate resources to relaying data by UE relays in different hops to enable efficient multi-hop relay with lower latency and higher reliability—resource allocation).
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the at least one relay resource corresponds to a frequency range usable by the relay user equipment to transmit the at least one protocol data unit during the relay resource occasion (See Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraph 70: communication resources such as time-frequency resources can be pre-configured or pre-allocated, as sub-channels; paragraph 71: As shown in FIG. 4A, different sub-channels could be multiplexed by frequency in frequency division multiplexing (FDM)).
Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the relay resource occasion indication is at least one of: a relay resource occasion start time indication indicative of a latest start time corresponding to the relay resource occasion, a relay resource occasion end time indication indicative of a latest end time corresponding to the relay resource occasion, or a relay resource occasion duration indication indicative of a maximum duration corresponding to the relay resource occasion (paragraph 158: The relay UEs could use this information to determine the timing and resource(s) for transmission or listening based on the configuration of an end-to-end transmission cycle).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation is rejected based upon claim 6's exclusion of this limitation through use of the “or” statement.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2022/0078755 A1) in view of Hoang et al. (US 2025/0202604 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Xu teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one second traffic parameter metric target comprises a minimum data rate corresponding to the transmission of the at least one protocol data unit, by the relay user equipment to the destination user equipment, via the relay communication link.
However, Hoang teaches the at least one second traffic parameter metric target comprises a minimum data rate corresponding to the transmission of the at least one protocol data unit, by the relay user equipment to the destination user equipment, via the relay communication link (paragraph 208: Relay WTRU may indicate its supported… minimum data rate).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu’s method by incorporating the teachings of Hoang, for the purpose of enabling communication between equipment according to a specified technique or parameter.
Claims 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2022/0078755 A1) in view of Fujii et al. (US 2010/0232436 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Xu teaches a first user equipment (Fig. 18; paragraph 158: relay UE 1810), comprising: a processor (inherent in UEs) configured to: receive, from a second user equipment (End node #1 1802), a sidelink configuration comprising a sidelink occasion indication indicative of a sidelink occasion corresponding to a traffic parameter metric target associated with a protocol data unit directed to a third user equipment (End node #2 1804) and corresponding to a sidelink communication link between the first user equipment and the third user equipment (paragraph 157-158: The start of a configured end-to-end transmission cycle could be dynamically indicated. For example, an indication of the start could be contained in DCI/SCI scheduling a transmission, or as an offset from a transmission of the DCI/SCI that schedules the transmission. Dynamic signaling could be transmitted from a source end node, such as end node #1 in FIG. 18. [0158] Information indicative of the start of end-to-end transmission could be broadcast or otherwise relayed to relay UEs at a next hop and ultimately to an end node…The relay UEs could use this information to determine the timing and resource(s) for transmission or listening based on the configuration of an end-to-end transmission cycle. Also described in paragraphs 155-156: UE-to-UE relay; paragraph 137: sidelink); receive, from the second user equipment, the protocol data unit (See Fig. 18; paragraphs 157-158: Information indicative of the start of end-to-end transmission could be broadcast or otherwise relayed to relay UEs at a next hop and ultimately to an end node. Also described in paragraph 137); and transmit, to the third user equipment via the sidelink communication link, the protocol data unit according to the determined sidelink relay resource and the sidelink occasion (paragraph 158: Information indicative of the start of end-to-end transmission could be broadcast or otherwise relayed to relay UEs at a next hop and ultimately to an end node. Also described in paragraph 137).
Xu does not explicitly disclose determine a channel condition corresponding to the sidelink communication link to result in a determined sidelink channel condition; determine, based on the determined sidelink channel condition, a sidelink relay resource to transmit the protocol data unit to the destination user equipment via the sidelink communication link according to the sidelink occasion to result in a determined sidelink relay resource.
However, Fujii teaches determine a channel condition corresponding to the sidelink communication link to result in a determined sidelink channel condition (Step S208; paragraph 93: The channel scanning section 101 scans… determines an available channel from the channel candidates…); determine, based on the determined sidelink channel condition, a sidelink relay resource to transmit the protocol data unit to the destination user equipment (paragraph 93: destination terminal 12) via the sidelink communication link according to the sidelink occasion to result in a determined sidelink relay resource (Step S209 to S210; paragraph 93: determines an available channel from the channel candidates by referring to the table TEL (S209), and sends the control packet and the data packet (S210)).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu’s equipment by incorporating the teachings of Fujii, for the purpose of enabling communication between equipment according to a specified technique or parameter.
Regarding claim 16, Xu teaches first user equipment of claim 15, wherein the traffic parameter metric target is an allowable sidelink latency associated with the protocol data unit being transmitted by the first user equipment and being received by the third user equipment, and wherein the traffic parameter metric target is based on an end-to-end latency associated with the protocol data unit being transmitted by the second user equipment and being received by the third user equipment (paragraph 175: resource allocation by higher-layer configuration could be used for steady traffic with a stronger latency requirement and no central scheduling capability, such as UE-to-network in uplink or UE-to-UE. Also described in paragraphs 157-158, 268).
Regarding claim 17, Xu teaches the first user equipment of claim 16, wherein the end-to-end latency is determined by the second user equipment based on at least the sidelink communication link being a sidelink segment of a sidelink route from the second user equipment to the third user equipment (paragraph 175: resource allocation by higher-layer configuration could be used for steady traffic with a stronger latency requirement and no central scheduling capability, such as UE-to-network in uplink or UE-to-UE. Also described in paragraphs 157-158, 268).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Fujii as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hoang et al. (US 2025/0202604 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Xu and Fujii teach the first user equipment of claim 15, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sidelink configuration further comprises a traffic data rate corresponding to the protocol data unit, and wherein determination of the sidelink relay resource is further based on the traffic data rate.
However, Hoang teaches the sidelink configuration further comprises a traffic data rate corresponding to the protocol data unit, and wherein determination of the sidelink relay resource is further based on the traffic data rate (paragraph 208: Relay WTRU may indicate its supported… minimum data rate).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu and Fujii’s equipment by incorporating the teachings of Hoang, for the purpose of enabling communication between equipment according to a specified technique or parameter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not either suggest or disclose, individually or in combination, “based on the determined end-to-end latency, determining a sidelink configuration, wherein the sidelink configuration comprises an allowable relay link latency corresponding to the second sidelink communication link, to be used by the relay user equipment to determine a frequency range to use to transmit the traffic to the destination user equipment via the second sidelink communication link, wherein the sidelink configuration comprises a source transmission occasion indication indicative of a transmission occasion to be used by the source user equipment to transmit, by the source user equipment to the relay user equipment, the traffic, and wherein the sidelink configuration comprises at least one timing parameter value to be used by the relay user equipment to determine the frequency range to use to transmit the traffic to the destination user equipment via the second sidelink communication link” as described in independent claim 19.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHONDA L MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/RHONDA L MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462