DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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: 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 07/13/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant asserts that Kamei does not teach the amended claim feature of: “a predetermined constraint condition including a number of relay stations intervening in the communications and a delay quantity for propagation via each of the relay stations intervening in the communications,” under the §102 rejection of the previous Office Action. Applicants Remarks at pp. 16-17. The Examiner agrees.
However, the above-contested, amended claim subject matter is not rejected based on the teaching of Kamei under §102. Instead, the claim subject matter at issue is newly rejected in the instant Office Action based on the teaching of Leng combined with Kamei, under §103. As such Applicant’s corresponding arguments against Kamei have effectively been rendered moot, based on this new ground of rejection.
Specifically, Leng describes that for UE-to-UE relayed, multi-hop communications, i.e., V2X, a key consideration is communication transmission delay, as opposed to power efficiency. Leng also considers various relayed-communication parameter requirements, such as service-type, QoS, etc., which are delay-sensitive. Leng then introduces a predetermined constraint condition that can include a maximum/limited number of relay stations, i.e., a number other SL UEs, allowed along a relayed sidelink communications path between sender and receiver UEs, considering various delay-sensitive communication parameters (paras. [0049], [0076]-[0081], [0085], and [0174]-[0178]; and Fig. 6).
As such, Leng (in combination with Kamei) fairly teaches/suggests: “a predetermined constraint condition including a number of relay stations intervening in the communications and a delay quantity for propagation via each of the relay stations intervening in the communications,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15. Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Kamei’s UE-to-UE relayed communication constraint conditions to further include a limited number of relayed stations allowed between source and destination UEs to accommodate a required QoS, service type, timing requirement, etc., for relayed communications, as recognized by Leng.
Applicant also argues that “Kamei does does not… disclose or suggest calculating a communication path capacity,” based as claimed. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 18. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. What is claimed is a: “communication path capacity being calculated based on radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and each of the one or more relay stations [which can be interpreted as a single relay station], radio wave propagation characteristics between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station [which can be a single relay station], and radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and the second communication station.” The claims thus require calculating some type of communication path capacity considering RF characteristics between a first STA and a relay, i.e., a first link, and then between the relay a second STA, i.e., a second link. The RF characteristics between the first STA and the second STA are equivalent to just the first and second link RF characteristics combined in some way, i.e., as in a single-hop relay scenario.
As explained in the below Office Action, and with respect to Kamei’s Fig. 2 (reproduced below), Kamei teaches radio propagation characteristics between its base station 220 and its relay station 232, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path A2 222 of Fig. 2. Kamei also teaches making received signal strength calculations, i.e., radio propagation characteristics, can be made for each of the other BS-relay paths A1 and A3 (paras. [0062]-[0064] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5). Thus, Kamei fairly reads on the contested claim feature of “a communication path capacity being calculated based [in part] on radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and each of the one or more relay stations.”
PNG
media_image1.png
612
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kamei also describes that radio propagation characteristics between the relay station 232 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path B2 223 of Fig. 2, and that the same calculations can be made for each of the other relay-UE paths B1 and B3 (paras. [0062]-[0064] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5). Thus, Kamei fairly reads on the contested claim feature of: “communication path capacity being calculated based [in part] on …radio wave propagation characteristics between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station.”
Lastly, Kamei teaches that its radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength difference 224 for paths A2-B2, A1-B1, A3-B3, of Fig. 2 (paras. [0062]-[0064], [0079] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5). Thus, Kamei also fairly reads on the contested claim feature of “communication path capacity being calculated based on …radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and the second communication station.”
The Examiner interprets the above teaching of Kamei to include a cumulative path capacity calculation considering RF propagation characteristics of a relayed (single-hop) communication between sender and receiver device. Further, the Examiner recommends Applicant further define its “path capacity” term within its claims so as to avoid unintended claim term interpretation via the Office’s broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, as path capacity can generally relate to many differing RF communication metrics.
Applicant additionally argues that Kamei does not disclose calculating communication path capacity in terms of “three sets” of radio wave propagation characteristics, or in a “three-factor” path capacity calculation/framework for evaluating multiple signal paths. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 19. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that some features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., three sets of radio wave propagation characteristics, three-factor calculation, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, are determined not to be persuasive, or have otherwise been rendered moot, based on the new ground of rejection (i.e., the combination of Leng) presented in the instant Office Action under §103.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 20. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 2019/0364437 A1, Kamei et al. (hereinafter “Kamei”) in view of US PG Pub No. 2024/0147489 A1, Leng et al. (hereinafter “Leng”).
With Respect to claim 1, Kamei teaches:
A communication system (communication system of Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a first communication station (base station 102 of Figs. 1-2);
one or more relay stations to be communicable with the first communication station (relay stations 103/(231-233) of Figs. 1-2);
a second communication station to be communicable with the first communication station any of the one or more relay stations or without any of the one or more relay stations (para. [0062]; and communication terminal 101/210 of Figs. 1-2); and
a controller to determine a relay station intervening in communications between the first communication station and the second communication station to maximize a communication path capacity (paras. [0150]-[0154] —relay path capacity can be considered in terms of a number of available/used channels for particular relay path) between the first communication station and the second communication station under a predetermined constraint condition (paras. [0058], [0062]-[0064], and [0075]-[0076]; and base station selector 121 of Fig. 1 —the selector can select, i.e., selection 225, a relay, i.e., relay station 232, for communications a relayed path between the base station and the terminal, i.e., A2-B2, based on path segment measurements (measurers 111 and 131 of Fig. 1 can measure path signals 222 and 223) to optimize communication resources —the BS/selector can set the frequency and periods for path signal measurement/discovery —the optimization in relay/path selection can be interpreted to include maximizing communication path based on relay path capacity —the predetermined constraint difference can further be interpreted to be associated with a difference between the path segment signal strengths for a relayed communication path, depicted in 224 of Fig. 2)
the communication path capacity being calculated based on radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and each of the one or more relay stations (paras. [0062]-[0064] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5 —radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the relay station 232, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path A2 222 of Fig. 2 —the same calculations can be made for each of the other BS-relay paths A1 and A3),
the radio wave propagation characteristics between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station (paras. [0062]-[0064] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5 —radio propagation characteristics between the relay station 232 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path B2 223 of Fig. 2 —the same calculations can be made for each of the other relay-UE paths B1 and B3), and
the radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and the second communication station (paras. [0062]-[0064], [0079] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5 —radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength difference 224 for paths A2-B2, A1-B1, A3-B3, of Fig. 2).
However, Kamei does not explicitly teach:
a predetermined constraint condition including a number of relay stations intervening in the communications and a delay quantity for propagation via each of the relay stations intervening in the communications.
Leng does teach:
a predetermined constraint condition including a number of relay stations intervening in the communications and a delay quantity for propagation via each of the relay stations intervening in the communications (paras. [0049], [0076]-[0081], [0085], and [0174]-[0178]; and Fig. 6 —when considering communication delay, service type, QoS, etc., a predetermined constraint condition can include a maximum/limited number of relay stations, i.e., a number other SL UEs, enabled along a sidelink communications path/tunnel between sender and receiver UEs —relaying data via additional relays introduces additional relay communication processing time-delay, as is readily understood by those of ordinary skill in the art).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamei’s UE-to-UE relayed communication constraint conditions to further include a limited number of relayed stations allowed between source and destination, as taught by Leng.
The motivation for doing so would have been to accommodate a required QoS, service type, level of delay, etc., for relayed communications, as recognized by Leng (paras. [0049], [0076]-[0081], [0085], and [0174]-[0178]; and Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 2, Kamei in view of Leng teaches:
The communication system according to claim 1, wherein the controller calculates the communication path capacity by varying a relay station or combinations of relay stations intervening in the communications between the first communication station and the second communication station in the one or more relay stations when determining the relay station (Kamei: paras. [0063]-[0064], [0120]-[0122], and [0153]-[0154]; and 221 of Figs. 2, 12, and 19 —various communication path capacities can be evaluated by varying/evaluating different relay stations or combinations of relay stations for multi-relayed communication paths —the alternative term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits for a single corresponding alternative, for the reasons described above in the: Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language, section).
With respect to claim 8, Kamei teaches:
A controller (base station selector 121/200 of Figs. 1-2) configured to control communications between a first communication station and a second communication station any of one or more relay stations or without any of the one or more relay stations (para. [0062]; and communication terminal 101/210 of Figs. 1-2),
the controller being configured to execute determining a relay station intervening in communications between the first communication station and the second communication station to maximize a communication path capacity between the first communication station and the second communication station under a predetermined constraint condition (paras. [0058], [0062]-[0064], and [0075]-[0076]; and base station selector 121 of Fig. 1 —the selector can select, i.e., selection 225, a relay, i.e., relay station 232, for communications a relayed path between the base station and the terminal, i.e., A2-B2, based on path segment measurements (measurers 111 and 131 of Fig. 1 can measure path signals 222 and 223) to optimize communication resources —the BS/selector can set the frequency and periods for path signal measurement/discovery —the optimization in relay/path selection can be interpreted to include maximizing communication path based on relay path capacity —the predetermined constraint difference can further be interpreted to be associated with a difference between the path segment signal strengths for a relayed communication path, depicted in 224 of Fig. 2),
wherein the communication path capacity is calculated based on
radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and each of the one or more relay stations (paras. [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 2 —radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the relay station 232, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path A2 222 of Fig. 2 —the same calculations can be made for each of the other BS-relay paths A1 and A3),
the radio wave propagation characteristics between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station (paras. [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 2 —radio propagation characteristics between the relay station 232 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path B2 223 of Fig. 2 —the same calculations can be made for each of the other relay-UE paths B1 and B3), and
the radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and the second communication station (paras. [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 2 —radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength difference 224 for paths A2-B2, A1-B1, A3-B3, of Fig. 2).
However, Kamei does not explicitly teach:
a predetermined constraint condition including a number of relay stations intervening in the communications and a delay quantity for propagation via each of the relay stations intervening in the communications.
Leng does teach:
a predetermined constraint condition including a number of relay stations intervening in the communications and a delay quantity for propagation via each of the relay stations intervening in the communications (paras. [0049], [0076]-[0081], [0085], and [0174]-[0178]; and Fig. 6 —when considering communication delay, service type, QoS, etc., a predetermined constraint condition can include a maximum/limited number of relay stations, i.e., a number other SL UEs, enabled along a sidelink communications path/tunnel between sender and receiver UEs).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamei’s UE-to-UE relayed communication constraint conditions to further include a limited number of relayed stations allowed between source and destination, as taught by Leng.
The motivation for doing so would have been to accommodate a required QoS, service type, level of delay, etc., for relayed communications, as recognized by Leng (paras. [0049], [0076]-[0081], [0085], and [0174]-[0178]; and Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 15 is presented in method form. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamei in view Leng, in further view of US PG Pub. 2023/0085726 A1, Iwabuchi et al. (hereinafter “Iwabuchi”).
With Respect to claim 3, Kamei in view of Leng teaches the communication system according to claim 1, where a base station (a first communication station) can communicate with a UE (a second communication station or relay-UE) directly or in relayed communication, as depicted in Figs. 2, 12, and 15.
However, Kamei in view of Leng does not explicitly teach:
wherein a modulation signal in the communications between the first communication station and the second communication station includes a guard interval between a symbol and another symbol, each of the symbol and another symbol corresponding to an interval of same bit information,
the controller sets propagation delay time of a second signal so that the propagation delay time of a first signal reaching the second communication station from the first communication station without any of the one or more relay stations takes a value different from a value of the propagation delay time of the second signal reaching the second communication station from the first communication station any of the one or more relay stations and the propagation delay time of the second signal being set within such a range that the second signal does not delay equally to or longer than time of the guard interval, and
the relay station intervening in the communications between the first communication station and the second communication station performs non-regenerative relay for the second signal, based on the set propagation delay time of the second signal.
Iwabuchi does teach:
a modulated signal between a first communication station and a second communication station including a guard interval between symbols, corresponding to an interval of same bit information (paras. [0009]-[0011]; and Fig. 1 —a cyclic prefix (CP) is a guard interval that can be set between symbols of the same bit stream, such as for modulated 5G communications between a base station 2 and UE 3 of Fig. 1 —the Examiner interprets this limitation to relate to any communications between the first and second communication station, relayed or not),
setting a propagation delay time of a second signal so that the propagation delay time of a first signal reaching the second communication station from the first communication station without any of the one or more relay stations (the Examiner interprets this limitation to relate to a non-relayed communication between the first and second communication stations) takes a value different from a value of the propagation delay time of the second signal reaching the second communication station from the first communication station any of the one or more relay stations (the Examiner interprets this limitation to relate to a relayed communication between the first and second communication stations) and the propagation delay time of the second signal being set within such a range that the second signal does not delay equally to or longer than time of the guard interval (paras. [0009]-[0012], [0075]-[0076], [0087], and [0097]-[0098]; and Fig. 1 —a relayed signal between a base station and a UE can be set with an adjusted CP interval (i.e., a guard interval), such that a propagation delay associated with the relayed communication remains less than an adjusted CP interval in an effort to avoid interference, i.e., self-interference —in contrast, a non-relayed communication between the base station and the UE would not have the same relay propagation delay, and would therefore be less than that of the relayed communication —the Examiner interprets the above to refer to a relayed second signal communication taking longer to reach a destination station, than a non-relayed first signal communication, in terms of propagation delay time, and notes that a relayed second signal delay would be less than an extended guard interval/cyclic prefix set to avoid interference), and
an intermediary relay station performing non-regenerative relaying for a second signal, based on a set propagation delay time of the second signal (paras. [0105]-[0106] —an intermediary relay may be a repeater-type relay that amplifies and forwards a received signal in accordance with a delay time thereof).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamei in view of Leng’s relayed communications solution with the CP/guard interval adjustment and delay compensation, as taught by Iwabuchi.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce self-interference caused by propagation delay for non-regenerative relay devices, i.e., active repeaters, as recognized by Iwabuchi (paras. [0009]-[0012], [0075]-[0076], and [0105]-[0106]).
With respect to claim 10, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 10 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng and Iwabuchi, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng and Iwabuchi, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamei in view of Leng and Iwabuchi, in further view of US PG Pub 2013/0010601 A1, Senarath et al. (hereinafter “Senarath”).
With respect to claim 4, Kamei in view of Leng and Iwabuchi teaches the communication system according to claim 3.
Kamei further teaches base station calculating, for each relay station in a viable path between source and destination stations, limitation information relating to a capacity/number of communications a relay station can handle and a usage/number of relayed communications thereof, as well as a remaining battery level capacity. Further Kamei teaches that the limitation information may be taken into consideration for priority in relay station selection, and that remaining battery can be of a highest priority in selection criteria (paras. [0154]-[0154]; and 1926 of Fig. 19). In this regard Kamei fairly teaches evaluating each communication path capacity to actual channel usage between first and second communication stations with each relay station intervening in the communications between the first and second communications stations, and selecting the best relay station by prioritizing a relay station having the largest unused capacity and least attenuation from within the one or more relay stations.
However, Kamei in view of Leng and Iwabuchi do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller calculates a ratio of each communication path capacity, to a propagation delay quantity of the second relayed signal between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station, and where selection of the relay station is based on prioritizing base on a largest/best ratio among the one or more relay stations.
Senarath does teach:
wherein the controller calculates a ratio of each communication path capacity, to a propagation delay quantity of the second relayed signal between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station, and where selection of the relay station is based on prioritizing based on a largest/best ratio among the one or more relay stations (paras. [0031], and [0044]-[0048]; and Figs. 1 and 6 —the ratio between relay path capacity and packet delay along a relayed path can be evaluated in association with a capacity penalty ration Kd, to prioritize the best relayed path for selection among multiple paths, which can be analogously achieved by penalizing paths with the worst ratio).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamei in view of Leng and Iwabuchi’s relayed communications prioritized relay selection based on evaluating a ratio of each communication path capacity to a packet/propagation delay quantity, as taught by Senarath.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce self-interference and improve relay selection by prioritizing relays having the best path capacity to packet delay ratio, as described by Senarath (paras. [0009]-[0012], [0075]-[0076], and [0105]-[0106]).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng, Iwabuchi and Senarath, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng, Iwabuchi and Senarath, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamei in view of Leng, in further view of US PG Pub 2010/0323614 A1, Yu et al. (hereinafter “Yu”).
With respect to claim 6, Kamei in view of Leng teaches:
The communication system according to claim 1, wherein
on a downlink, the first communication station is a base station, and the second communication station is a terminal station (paras. [0058] and [0062]-[0064]; and Figs. 1-2 —the base station 102/220 can communicate with communication terminal/UE 101/210 on the DL),
on an uplink, the first communication station is the terminal station, and the second communication station is the base station (paras. [0058] and [0062]-[0064]; and Figs. 1-2 —the communication terminal/UE 101/210 can communicate with base station 102/220 on the UL), and
the controller (the base station 102 can comprise a controller/selector 121 of Fig. 1):
obtains, per wireless frame via the base station, the radio wave propagation characteristics measured based on a reference signal transmitted from the base station and received by the terminal station without any of the one or more relay stations (paras. [0063]-[0065], [0087], and [0136]-[0137]] —a base station/selector can receive a measured RS report, i.e., a signal strength, etc., from a Pro-Se UE with a measurer directly as depicted in Figs. 2, 12, and 15);
obtains, via the base station, the radio wave propagation characteristics measured based on the reference signals transmitted from the base station and received by the one or more relay stations (paras. [0063]-[0065], [0087], and [0136]-[0137]] —a base station/selector can receive a measured RS report, i.e., a signal strength, etc., from a dedicated relay terminal with a measurer as depicted in Figs. 2, 12, and 15);
determines the relay station intervening in the communications between the base station and the terminal station (paras. [0058] and [0064]; selector 121 of Fig. 1, and Fig. 4 —the base station selector can select a relay station intervening between the BS and the UE, with the best measured/determined RS strength difference, as depicted in block S411).
However, Kamei in view of Leng does not explicitly teach:
obtaining, via the base station, the radio wave propagation characteristics measured based on the reference signals transmitted from the terminal station and received by the one or more relay stations.
Yu does teach:
obtaining, via the base station, the radio wave propagation characteristics measured based on the reference signals transmitted from the terminal station and received by the one or more relay stations (paras. [0049]-[0050], [0074]-[0076] and [0110]; and blocks 900 and 902 of Fig. 9 —a UE can transmit a sounding reference signal (and UL RS) that can be received and measured by a relay station and/or a base station (i.e., for direct path) —the relay measurements can be forwarded to a network BS for further evaluations).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamei in view of Leng’s relay selection solution with the UL RS evaluations, as taught by Yu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve relay selection by considering UL communications signal measurement between a UE and a candidate relay, as described by Yu (paras. [0049]-[0050], [0074]-[0076] and [0110]; and blocks 900 and 902 of Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 7, Kamei in view of Leng and Yu teaches:
The communication system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is included in the base station (Kamei: paras. [0058] and [0082]-[0083]; and base station 102/220 selector 121 of Figs. 1-2 —the Examiner interprets the relay selector to be a controller for selecting relay terminals as part of relayed communications path selection).
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng and Yu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Leng and Yu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
As previously indicated, claims 5, 12, and 19 are each 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 (i.e., independent claim 1 incorporating ALL of the limitations of claims 3 and 5; independent claim 8 incorporating ALL of the limitations of claims 10 and 12; and independent claim 15 incorporating ALL of the limitations of claims 17 and 19).
The Examiner notes that none of the cited references appear to reasonably teach/suggest the claimed features of: “integrat[ing] propagation delay quantities of the second signals between the one or more relay stations and the second communication station in the sequence of the determined relay stations intervening in the communications,” “set[ting] the propagation delay time of the second signal via each of the certain number of relay stations intervening in the communications, based on an integrated value of the propagation delay quantities integrated up to the relay station determined immediately before each of the certain number of relay stations intervening in the communications” and then “determin[ing] in the sequence, from within the one or more relay stations, the certain number of relay stations intervening in the communications between the first communication station and the second communication station, the certain number being set in such a range that the second signal is not delayed equally to or longer than the guard interval time, based on the set propagation delay time,” as recited in each of dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, in combination with subject matter of the claims from which these claims respectively depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/DADY CHERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights