DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. The application claims priority to Foreign application Filed on 08/10/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted, IDS - 12/23/2023 and 04/23/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending
in the application. Claims 1-16 were amended and no claims were cancelled. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Objections to Specification
4. The disclosure is objected because of following formalities:
Applicant though amended the claims regarding the 35 USC 112 rejections regarding the Claim 3, 7, 11 and 15, ‘[aggregated with data traffic from multiple remote UEs]’ yet the spec [0066] that need corrections.
Appropriate corrections is required in specifications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5 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.
6. 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
he 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:
• Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
• Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
• Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
• Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
• obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Wang et al. (US-20230199614-A1) hereinafter Wang et al.in view of Hoang et al. (US-20230300713-A1) hereinafter “Hoang”.
Regarding Claim 1,
Wang discloses, ‘A base station (BS) in a wireless communication system, the BS comprising: a transceiver’ (Fig. 1 includes transceiver for the BS and the terminal);
Wang discloses, ‘and a controller coupled with the transceiver, and configured to: receive, from a first user equipment (UE) which is a remote UE via a direct path a list of candidate relay UE associated with for the first UE
Determine to change the direct path to the indirect path,
transmit, to the first UE, information configuring the indirect path for a path change, and
perform data transmission and reception with the first UE by using
Regarding the path switch, disclosures include: based on the coverage and measurement in the existing direct-path when the remote out-of-coverage, The network can configure remote UE 601 and relay UE 603 to establish the relaying link to enable the indirect path as part of switch procedure. Disclosure further specify the alternatively from the out-of-coverage to in-coverage to add direct-path via Uu RRC message and perform the switch procedure [0047].
List of candidate relay UEs and determination of direct/indirect-path [0047-0049] and in Fig. 6 to 7. And in Fig. 8 includes SRAP between the remote-UE and the BS; one/more remote-UEs and/or relay-UEs; SRAP-layer-812 for the data transmits/receptions [0050, 0065, 0070] and in Fig. 10.)
And discloses,
‘Wherein the indirect path is determined based on parameters of the direct path and indirect path’ (determination/selection of path direct/indirect (disclosed above) based on the parameters as stacks (RLC), path/link quality and measurements [0067]. And, parameters for the SRAP includes UE/RBs-ID [0071].),
And didn’t disclose, ‘the parameters including path identifiers (IDs), priority levels, and a number of hop counts’.
Hoang in the relevant art discloses, identifiers and number of hops for link-selection includes one/more SL-relays [0189, 0191] and priority [0318].
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Wang and to include
with that of Hoang to come up with the claim invention,
Wang discloses the determination of patch/link-change procedure [0047]; uses SRAP for SL-relays [0054] in Fig. 6 to 8 and in Fig. 10. Provide motive of adaptation procedures of SRAP for multiple-paths uses stacks and identifier [0071]; Packet are delivered ingress/egress of RLC entities of multiple transceving-path; multi-path configuration for reliability and throughput [0004, 0006] for the multi-hop [0035, 0049]. And someone would include to these parameters more specific disclosed by Hoang as part of reliability of QoS [0025, 0318].
Regarding Claim 2,
‘The BS of claim 1 (disclosed above),
Wang discloses, ‘wherein the first UE connect to the base station via a second UE which is a relay UE on the indirect path
Regarding Claim 3,
‘The BS of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Wang discloses, ‘wherein first UE is configured with a multi-path comprising the direct path and the indirect path
Regarding Claim 4,
‘The BS of claim 1 (disclosed above),
Wang discloses, ‘wherein the information configuration the indirect path is transmitted via a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message’ (the RRC message [0047];)
Regarding Claim 5,
Wang discloses, ‘A first user equipment (UE) which is a remote UE in a wireless communication system, the first UE comprising: a transceiver’ (Fig. 1 includes transceiver for the BS and the terminal);
Identical to claim 1 disclosed above only inclusion of controller Fig. 1 [0031] for the UE, ‘to a base station (BS) via a direct path between the first UE and the BS, information on a list of candidate relay UEs associated with one or more radio links associated with the direct path and an indirect path between for the first UE and the BS, receive, from the BS, information for a path switching from the direct path to configuring the indirect path for a path change, identify a second UE which is a relay UE, and perform data transmission and reception with the base station by using communicate with the BS via the indirect path wherein the indirect path is determined based on parameters of the direct path and the indirect path, the parameters including path identifiers (IDs), priority levels, and a number of hop counts.’
Regarding Claim 6,
‘The UE of claim 5‘ (disclosed above),
Identical to Claim 2 disclosed above, ‘wherein the first UE connects to the base station via a second UE which is a relay UE on the indirect path.’
Regarding Claim 7,
‘The first UE of claim 5‘ (disclosed above),
Identical to Claim 3 disclosed above, ‘wherein first UE is configured with a multi-path comprising the direct path and the indirect path
a data module that performs data split or data duplication at SL relay adaptation protocol (SRAP) layer for egress data packets before delivering egress data packets to multiple corresponding radio link control (RLC) entities of a source protocol stack of the UE; and an aggregation module that aggregates ingress data packets received from the multiple transceving paths.
Regarding Claim 8,
‘The first UE of claim 5‘ (disclosed above),
Identical to Claim 4 disclosed above, ‘the information configuration the indirect path is transmitted via a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message’.
Regarding Claim 9,
A method claim Identical to Claim 1 disclosed above, ‘A method performed by a base station (BS) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a first user equipment (UE) which is a remote UE via a direct path between the first UE and the BS, information on a list of candidate relay UEs associated with one or more radio links associated with the direct path and an indirect path between for the first UE and the BS; determining to change the direct path to the indirect path; transmitting, to the first UE, information configuring for a path switching from the direct path to the indirect path for a path change; and performing data transmission and reception with the first UE by using communicating with the first UE via the indirect path wherein the indirect path is determined based on parameters of the direct path and the indirect path, the parameters including path identifiers (IDs), priority levels, and a number of hop counts.’
Regarding Claim 10,
A method claim Identical to Claim 2 disclosed above, ‘The method of claim 9, wherein the first UE connects to the base station via a second UE which is a relay UE on the indirect path.’
Regarding Claim 11,
A method claim Identical to Claim 3 disclosed above, ‘The method of claim 9, wherein data traffic received from the remote UE via the indirect path is aggregated with data traffic from multiple UEs.’
Regarding Claim 12,
A method claim Identical to Claim 4 disclosed above, ‘The method of claim 9, wherein the information on the one or more radio links includes at least one of a network condition, a congestion indication, or a radio link failure (RLF) indication.’
Regarding Claim 13,
A method claim Identical to Claim 5 disclosed above, ‘A method performed by a first user equipment (ULE) which is a remote UE in a wireless communication system,
the method comprising: transmitting, to a base station (BS) via a direct path between the first UE and the BS, information on a list of candidate relay UEs associated with one or more radio links associated with the direct path and an indirect path between for the first UE and the BS; receiving, from the BS, information configuring for a path switching from the direct path to the indirect path for a path change; identifying a second UE which is a relay UE; and performing data transmission and reception with the base station by using communicating with the BS via the indirect path, wherein the indirect path is determined based on parameters of the direct path and the indirect path, the parameters including path identifiers (IDs), priority levels, and a number of hop counts.’
Regarding Claim 14,
A method claim Identical to Claim 6 disclosed above, ‘The method of claim 13, wherein the first UE connect to the base station via a second UE which is a relay UE on the indirect path.’
Regarding Claim 15,
A method claim Identical to Claim 7 disclosed above, ‘The method of claim 13, wherein first UE is configured with a multi-path comprising the direct path and the indirect path’
Regarding Claim 16,
A method claim Identical to Claim 8 disclosed above, ‘The method of claim 13, wherein the information configuration the indirect path is transmitted via a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message.’
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Arguments:
REMARKS
Claims 1-16 were pending in this application.
Claims 1-16 were rejected.
Claims 1-16 have been amended as shown above.
Claims 1-16 remain pending in this application.
Reconsideration of the claims is respectfully requested.
With respect to all claim amendments, the Applicant does not concede in this application that the subject matter of the claims prior to the amendments is not patentable over the references cited in the Office Action. The present claim amendments are made only to facilitate expeditious prosecution of the application. The Applicant respectfully reserves the right to pursue these and other claims in one or more continuations and/or divisional patent applications.
I. CLAIM OBJECTION
Claim 14 was objected to because of various informalities. The Applicant submits that the amendments presented above render this objection moot and respectfully requests that the objections to Claim 14 be withdrawn.
II. REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims 3, 7, 11 and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement and lacking enablement for reciting the subject matter "indirect path aggregated with data traffic from multiple remote UE." The Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments represented above render this rejection moot and respectfully requests that the § 112(a) rejection be withdrawn.
PATENT
III. REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 1-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0199614 ("Wang"). This rejection is respectfully traversed.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. (MPEP § 2131; Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Claim 1 recites a base station (BS) in a wireless communication system, where the BS includes:
a transceiver; and
a controller coupled with the transceiver, and configured to: receive, from a first user equipment (UE) which is a remote UE via a direct path, information on a list of candidate relay UEs associated with an indirect path for the first UE,
determine to change the direct path to the indirect path,
transmit, to the first UE, information configuring the indirect path for a path change, and
perform data transmission and reception with the first UE by using the indirect path,
wherein the indirect path is determined based on parameters of the direct path and the indirect path, the parameters including path identifiers (IDs), priority levels, and a number of
hop counts.
[Emphasis Added].
Support for the above-identified amendment can be found in the specification as filed, such as in paragraphs [0123] - [0134]. No new matter has been added.
Claim 1, as amended, encompasses not only a path switch from a direct path to an indirect path, but also a routing-based path switching architecture for identifying, managing,
PATENT
and selecting paths. Specifically, according to Claim 1, the base station receives, from a remote user equipment (UE), information on a list of candidate relay UEs associated with an indirect path and determines whether to switch from the direct path to the indirect path by comprehensively considering multiple path parameters for both the direct path and the indirect path. In this context, the indirect path is determined based on parameters including a path identifier (ID), a priority level, and a hop count for the indirect path. These parameters represent routing information that characterizes the path itself, rather than merely reflecting link quality or coverage conditions. In particular, Claim 1 does not assume an indirect path based on a single relay, but instead presumes a multi-hop scenario that may include a plurality of relay UEs. In such a case, constraints on the hop count are explicitly reflected in the path selection and switching determination. This constitutes a network-level path management concept in which a switch to an indirect path is performed only within an allowable maximum hop count, taking into account latency, reliability, and signaling overhead issues that increase with the number of relay UEs.
In contrast, Wang merely discloses a transmission-layer-centric multipath data processing technique in which multiple transmission paths are configured and data splitting, duplication, and aggregation are performed at the SRAP or PDCP layer. The path switching in Wang is limited to selecting either a direct path or an indirect path as a primary path based on coverage conditions or signal quality. Wang does not disclose any structure for identifying and managing each path using a path ID, nor does it disclose evaluating or switching paths based on routing tables or hop count information. Furthermore, Wang makes no mention whatsoever of a hop count concept associated with the number of relays constituting an indirect path, or of any path switching determination that takes a maximum hop count into consideration. This is because Wang is
PATENT
fundamentally focused on improving data transmission reliability and throughput through SRAP/PDCP-layer data processing and does not consider the technical problem of path selection, path management, or routing-based path switching in a multi-hop network.
Claim 1 is clearly distinguishable from techniques such as Wang that merely configure multiple paths to distribute or aggregate data, in that Claim 1 includes a technical feature from a network control perspective in which switching from a direct path to an indirect path is determined based on routing parameters including a path identifier, a path priority, and a hop count.
For at least these reasons, Claim 1 and its dependent claims are allowable. For one or more of these reasons, Claims 5, 8, and 13 and their respective dependent claims are allowable. The Applicant respectfully requests that the § 102 rejection be withdrawn.
Examiners response:
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks, examiner responses are:
Examiner reviewed the applicant’s arguments/remarks and further amended claims and provided most relevant prior arts and disclosures in the office actions that discloses the subject matters and Claims. Addressed all the claims and applicant’s argument/remarks disclosed from the presented prior arts “Wang”, and “Hoang”.
Applicant respectfully provides following regarding the Claims and the subject matter:
Wang discloses
the multiple-path selection and determination from candidate-relay-UEs [0047]. In Fig. 1 includes multi-path module and selection/determination in Fig. 2, 6-8 and Fig. 10.
Multipath configuration [0047].
Parameters of multi-path selection uses the SRAP adaption procedures and the UE/RBs-id [0071]. And, RLC-layers/stack for the UE-to-NW-relay includes ingress and egress, RBs, channel and End-to-End connection established stack SDAP and PDCP [0043] and in Fig. 5.
Specific parameters path ID, priority and hop count didn’t disclose by Wang and Hoang discloses path selection includes identifier [0189, 0191], SL-measurements of multi-hop, number of hops [0327-0328], prioritize [0318, 0331-0332]. Wang provide motive to increase the reliability [0004, 0025] that is reinforced by Hoang [0318].
Examiner thanks applicant and attorney for their time and efforts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
5G; NR; Sidelink Relay Adaptation Protocol (SRAP) Specification (3GPP TS 38.351 version 17.0.0 Release 17, 2022-05) (Year: 2022);
R3-181345, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #99; L2-based multi-hop architecture to support IAB architecture requirements; Athens, Greece, 26th February – 2nd March 2018
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A
shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS
from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO
MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed
until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened
statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension
fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory
action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX
MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to SYED AHMED whose telephone number is (703)756-
5308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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 Faruk Hamza can be reached on (571) 272-7969. 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.
/S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466