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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 11/9/2023, 6/5/2024 and 12/11/2024 are considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 is a corresponding device claim of claim 7. It appears that claim 14 should depend on claim 8 instead of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Phan et al (Van Phan), EP3952170A1, published on 2/9/2022, with a filing date of 8/7/2020.
As per claim 1, Van Phan teaches the invention including a relay user equipment (UE) device (R-UE) comprising:
A receiver configured to receive data from a source UE device (pp. 0149, 0163: Step 351, 353, 557; R-UE receives the TB successfully);
A transmitter configured to transmit the data to a destination UE device (pp. 0163: Step 560); and
A controller configured to determine the data was not received at the destination UE device (pp. 0163: Step 554), the transmitter further configured to transmit, in response to the determination by the controller, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) NACK message to the source UE device indicating the data was not successfully received at the destination UE device (pp. 0163: Step 554).
As per claim 5, Van Phan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Van Phan further teaches the controller configured to determined the data was not received at the destination UE device in response to determining no HARQ feedback for the data was received from the destination device (pp. 0163: Step 553b).
As per claim 6, Van Phan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5. Van Phan further teaches the controller configured to determine the data was not received at the destination UE device in response to determining no HARQ feedback for the data was received form the destination device within a maximum HARQ feedback time limit (pp. 0163: Step 555).
As per claim 7, Van Phan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Van Phan further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the data was successfully received at the relay UE device and the transmitter is configured to transmit the HARQ NACK without transmitting the HARQ ACK (pp. 0163: Step 553b and 554).
As per claim 8, Van Phan teaches the invention including a method performed by a relay user equipment (UE) device (R-UE), the method comprising:
Receiving data from a source UE device (pp. 0149, 0163: Step 351, 353, 557; R-UE receives the TB successfully);
Transmitting the data to a destination UE device (pp. 0163: Step 560); and
Determining the data was not received at the destination UE device (pp. 0163: Step 554); and
Transmitting, in response to the determination by the controller, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) NACK message to the source UE device indicating the data was not successfully received at the destination UE device (pp. 0163: Step 554).
As per claim 12, Van Phan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Van Phan further teaches wherein the determining that the data was not received at the destination UE device comprises determining no HARQ feedback for the data was received from the destination device (pp. 0163: Step 553b).
As per claim 13, Van Phan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 12. Van Phan further teaches wherein the determining the data was not received at the destination UE device comprises determining no HARQ feedback for the data was received form the destination device within a maximum HARQ feedback time limit (pp. 0163: Step 555).
As per claim 14, Van Phan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Van Phan further teaches to comprise:
Determining the data was successfully received at the relay UE device from the source UE device wherein transmitting the HARQ NACK comprises transmitting the HARQ NACK without transmitting the HARQ ACK (pp. 0163: Step 553b and 554).
As per claim 15, Van Phan teaches the invention including a source user equipment (UE) device (Tx UE) comprising:
A transmitter configured to transmit data to a destination UE device via UE device (pp. 0149, 0163: Steps 351-353, 557, 560; Tx UE transmits a TB, R-UE relays the received TV to Rx UE);
A receiver configured to receive, from the relay UE device, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) NACK message indicating the data was not successfully received at the destination UE device (pp. 0163: Step 554).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al (Van Phan), EP3952170A1, in view of Wakabayashi et al (Wakabayashi), US 2017/0310427.
As per claim 2, Van Phan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Van Phan does not specifically teach wherein the controller is configured to determine the data was not received at the destination UE device in response to another HARQ NACK message received from the destination UE device. Wakabayashi teaches to utilize relay UE, wherein the controller is configured to determine the data was not received at the destination UE device in response to another HARQ NACK message received from the destination UE device (pp. 0085-0086, 0088-0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Van Phan and Wakabayashi and utilize the relay UE to detect the NACK message from the destination UE and forward it to the source UE in the case the source UE fails to detect the NACK message.
As per claim 3, Van Phan and Wakabayashi teach the invention as claimed in claim 2. Wakabayashi further teaches wherein the another HARQ NACK message is received in accordance with an ACK/NACK HARQ feedback configuration where the destination UE device sends ACK messages in response to successful receptions of data and send NACK messages for unsuccessful receptions of data (pp. 0084-0086, 0088-0089).
As per claim 4, Van Phan and Wakabayashi teach the invention as claimed in claim 2. Wakabayashi further teaches wherein the another HARQ NACK message is received in accordance with a NACK-only HARQ feedback configuration where the destination UE device sends NACK messages for unsuccessful receptions of data and does not send ACK message in response to successful receptions of data (pp. 0073).
As per claim 9, Van Phan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Van Phan does not specifically teach to further comprise receiving another HARQ NACK message from the destination UE device, wherein the determining that the data was not received at the destination UE device comprises determining that the another HARQ NACK message was received from the destination UE device. Wakabayashi teaches to utilize relay UE that receive another HARQ NACK message from the destination UE device, wherein the determining that the data was not received at the destination UE device comprises determining that the another HARQ NACK message was received from the destination UE device (pp. 0085-0086, 0088-0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Van Phan and Wakabayashi and utilize the relay UE to detect the NACK message from the destination UE and forward it to the source UE in the case the source UE fails to detect the NACK message.
As per claim 10, Van Phan and Wakabayashi teach the invention as claimed in claim 9. Wakabayashi further teaches wherein the receiving another HARQ NACK message from the destination UE device comprises receiving the another HARQ NACK message in accordance with an ACK/NACK HARQ feedback configuration where the destination UE device sends ACK messages in response to successful receptions of data and send NACK messages for unsuccessful receptions of data (pp. 0084-0086, 0088-0089).
As per claim 11, Van Phan and Wakabayashi teach the invention as claimed in claim 9. Wakabayashi further teaches wherein receiving another HARQ NACK message in accordance with a NACK-only HARQ feedback configuration where the destination UE device sends NACK messages for unsuccessful receptions of data and does not send ACK message in response to successful receptions of data (pp. 0073).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Phan et al, US 2023/0327822
Kazmi et al, US 2022/0312242
Ganesan et al, US 2021/0021536
Seo et al, US 2020/0127768
Panteleev et al, US 2018/0206176
Khoryaev et al, US 2018/0069664
Van Phan et al, EP3952169A1
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire Three MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY S LIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3968.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
KENNY S. LIN
Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/Kenny S Lin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
October 3, 2025
Prosecution Insights