DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-01-04 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 15-34 are pending for consideration.
35 USC §112(f) - Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The identified claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 15, 23, 30
a relay communication apparatus
generic holder: a relay communication apparatus
functional language: receives messages, establishes sidelink bearers
a first communication apparatus and the relay communication apparatus
generic holder: a first communication apparatus
functional language: establishes sidelink bearers
a second communication apparatus
generic holder: a second communication apparatus
functional language: establishes sidelink bearers
Claim(s) 20, 29
a network device
generic holder: a network device
functional language: receives information, determines QoS parameter information
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over WU_602 (US20240064602)
Claim(s) 15, 23, 30
WU_602 teaches
at least one processor, and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising: remote UE <FIGs. 16-19>
generating a first message; and sending the first message to a relay communication apparatus, wherein the first message comprises first parameter information and configuration information of at least one first radio link control (RLC) bearer on a first sidelink between a first communication apparatus and the relay communication apparatus, First remote UE sends, to a relay UE, first sidelink (SL) configuration message corresponding to a first bearer between the first remote UE and relay UE (e.g., SLRB-config) , the first SL configuration message comprising a first logical channel identifier (LCID), a first Layer 2 address, an end-to-end bearer ID, a next-hop quality of service (QoS) indicator. The QoS next-hope QoS indicator can be considered a first parameter information and all other information, including LCID can be considering to be the configuration information. <FIG(s). 7; para. 0084-0086; Claim 1>.
the first parameter information is used to determine configuration information of a second RLC bearer on a second sidelink between the relay communication apparatus and a second communication apparatus, and A second LCID is selected by the relay UE for use in a second SL configuration message based on the next-hop QoS indicator from the first remote UE. The second SL configuration message is sent to the remote UE, from the relay UE. <FIG(s). 7; para. 0085-0088; Claim 1>.
the configuration information of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink is determined based on first quality of service (QoS) parameter information on the first sidelink. LCID, which corresponds to the QoS priority or treatment with which data will be sent by the source remote on the bearer between the remote UE and relay UE. <para. 0085; Claim 1>.
Claim(s) 18
WU_602 teaches
wherein the first message comprises first identifier information identifying the second communication apparatus. First configuration message further includes a destination address parameter, which indicates to the relay UE 704 the ultimate destination (e.g., the destination remote UE) <FIG(s). 7; para. 0085>.
Claim(s) 19, 27, 33
WU_602 teaches
wherein the first parameter information comprises second QoS parameter information, and the second QoS parameter information comprises a QoS parameter requirement that is met by a QoS flow of the at least one first RLC bearer when the QoS flow of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink is transmitted on the second sidelink. Next-hop QoS indicator, from the first remote UE, may be an indication of a general (static) QoS priority or treatment that should be used for all data on this hop by hop path configuration. Accordingly that would include all flows and RLC bearers between the remote UE and source UE via the relay UE. <FIG(s). 7; para. 0085-0088; Claim 1>.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU_602 (US20240064602) in view of FREDA_313 (US20230180313)
Claim(s) 16, 24, 31
WU_602 does not explicitly teach
wherein the instructions cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising:
sending a third message to the second communication apparatus via the relay communication apparatus,
wherein the third message comprises first configuration information including
configuration information of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) and
a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) for transmission between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus.
However in a similar endeavor, FREDA_313 teaches
a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) for transmission between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus. A first remote WTRU may provide the configurations of the end-to-end SLRB over each of the individual links of the relayed path (e.g., links 194 and 195). Specifically, a first remote WTRU may configure any/all of the following: the receiving SDAP entity parameters at the second remote WTRU; the receiving PDCP entity parameters at the second remote WTRU;the receiving RLC entity parameters at both relay WTRU and the secone remote WTRU, etc. <FIG(s). 1E; para. 0163>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by WU_602 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by FREDA_313. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable configuring a WTRU an RRC layer without PC5-RRC signaling functionality <FIG(s). 4; para. 0098>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU_602 (US20240064602) in view of FU_874 (US20240056874)
Claim(s) 21, 28, 34
WU_602 does not explicitly teach
wherein the first parameter information comprises second identifier information, the second identifier information comprises PC5 quality of service flow identifier (PFI) information corresponding to the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink,
the PFI information is used by the relay communication apparatus to determine second QoS parameter information, and
the second QoS parameter information comprises a QoS parameter requirement that is met by a QoS flow of the at least one first RLC bearer when the QoS flow of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink is transmitted on the second sidelink.
However in a similar endeavor, FU_874 teaches
wherein the first parameter information comprises second identifier information, the second identifier information comprises PC5 quality of service flow identifier (PFI) information corresponding to the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink, the PFI information is used by the relay communication apparatus to determine second QoS parameter information, and the second QoS parameter information comprises a QoS parameter requirement that is met by a QoS flow of the at least one first RLC bearer when the QoS flow of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink is transmitted on the second sidelink. UE relay receives, from another UE (and therefore from a sidelink), a DL packet including QoS Flow Identifier (QFI) that corresponds to a mapped PFI. Accordingly the QFI can be considered "PFI information" (as opposed to simply being the PFI, as the claim scope is broad enough to encompass a broader scope than simply the actual PFI). The QFI is used to determined a mapped PFI, which can be considered a QoS parameters <FIG(s). 7; para. 0025, 0028, 0086-0087, 0103-0106>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by WU_602 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by FU_874. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable reflective QoS that can be applicable to the PC5 link with the remote UE. <para. 0010>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU_602 (US20240064602) in view of WANG_575 (US20220217575)
Claim(s) 20, 29
As discussed above, WU_602 teaches wherein that the configuration information of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink is determined based on first QoS parameter information on the first sidelink.
WU_602 does not explicitly teach
wherein that the configuration information of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink is determined:
when the first communication apparatus is in a connected state, sending the first QoS parameter information to a network device, and receiving the configuration information that is of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink and that is determined by the network device based on the first QoS parameter information;
when the first communication apparatus is in an idle state or an inactive state, determining the configuration information of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink based on bearer configuration information in a system message broadcast by the network device; or
when the first communication apparatus is located outside a cell coverage area, determining the configuration information of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink based on preconfigured bearer configuration information.
However in a similar endeavor, WANG_575 teaches
wherein that the configuration information of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink is determined:
when the first communication apparatus is in an idle state or an inactive state, determining the configuration information of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink based on bearer configuration information in a system message broadcast by the network device; or If the UE1 is in the RRC idle/inactive state, the V2X system message broadcast by the base station is configured with one or more sidelink signalling bearer configurations, and each sidelink signalling bearer configuration includes at least one of: a bearer identifier, a logic channel identifier, a logic channel priority, a bearer associated signalling type (PC5-S signalling and/or PC5-RRC signalling), <para. 0146>.
when the first communication apparatus is located outside a cell coverage area, determining the configuration information of the at least one first RLC bearer on the first sidelink based on preconfigured bearer configuration information. For the UE in the out-of-coverage state, the pre-configuration information includes one or more sidelink signalling bearer configurations, and according to the pre-configuration information, the UE establishes a sidelink signalling bearer for sending a to-be-transmitted signalling. <para. 0146>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by WU_602 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by WANG_575. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide solutions for when two UEs in sidelink unicast communication are under different base stations, the problem of sidelink radio bearer configuration conflict may occur. <para. 0003, Summary>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and objected to.
Claim(s) 22, 26, 32, 17, 25
The claim(s) is/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.
The claims require:
wherein before sending the first message, the instructions further cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising:
sending a third message to the second communication apparatus via the relay communication apparatus,
wherein the third message comprises third identifier information identifying a bearer between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus,
wherein the first message further comprises the third identifier information.
The closest prior art
PALADUGU - US20220418015, XIAO - WO2018145292, XU - US20240147326 and FREDA - US20230180313 teach embodiments where a network-side device or the relay UE sends bearer information including bearer ID to a remote UE. This is different from the claimed invention because the claimed invention requires the third message to a second communication apparatus via the relay, where the second communication apparatus and relay apparatus have second RLC bearer on a second sidelink between them. Accordingly, any art that teaches a network side device sending a third message equivalent is patently distinct from the invention since a network side device, by definition does not establish sidelink bearers with other devices.
In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter).
Relevant Cited References
US Provisional Applications
US63007148 filed 2020-04-08
US63061493 filed 2020-08-05
US63089358 filed 2020-10-08
US63090308 filed 2020-10-12
US63136463 filed 2021-01-12
US20220418015
US20240147326
US20230093763
US20230180313
PCTCN2020138609 (2020-12-23)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415