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 Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 were formerly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1). Pursuant to applicant’s amendments, these rejections have been maintained.
Claims 13-18 and 20 were formerly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1). Pursuant to applicant’s amendments, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Claims 7 and 19 were formerly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a). Pursuant to applicant’s amendments, these rejections have been withdrawn.
.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Kolev et
al. (US 11,343,195 B1, hereinafter Kolev).
Regarding claim 1, Kolev discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least
one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus
at least to: receive, from a first device (figure 1, 130 A includes the apparatus that receives), a request of
inter-user equipment coordination; determine at least one second device to which to forward the
request; and modify the request and forward the modified request to the at least one second device for
the second device to provide a response to the request to the first device, the request being modified by
an indication related to the forwarding to the at least one second device (column 8, lines 30 -35,
wherein the routing device 130A modifies the request).
Regarding claim 2, Kolev discloses wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that,
when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: determine an
inability of the apparatus to provide a response to the first device that responds to the request (column
8, lines 18-25, wherein the latency workload etc include the inability of the apparatus to provide a
response).
Regarding claim 3, Kolev discloses wherein: the request from the first device includes a latency
period during which the first device requests to receive a response to the request; and the determined
inability is a temporary inability to provide the response to the request to satisfy the latency period
included in the request from the first device (column 8, lines 18-25, wherein the latency workload etc
include the inability of the apparatus to provide a response).
Regarding claim 4, Kolev discloses , The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the
determined inability is a permanent inability to provide the response to the request (column 8, lines 18-
29 wherein the other criteria include the permanent inability)
Regarding claim 5, Kolev discloses, wherein determining the at least one second device is based
on at least one of the following: a distance between the apparatus and the at least one second device;
a mobility of the apparatus relative to the at least one second device; one or more capabilities of the at
least one second device ; a type of the at least one second device;
a similarity in an interference situation of the apparatus and the at least one second device;
a communication state between the apparatus and the at least one second device;
explicit consent from the at least one second device to receive requests from the apparatus; or
an explicit recommendation of the at least one second device to the apparatus from another device
(column 8, lines 18-30).
Regarding claim 6, Kolev discloses wherein the indication comprises one or more of the
following: transmission information indicating identifiers of the apparatus and the first device (Column
8, lines 54-60); information indicating the inability of the apparatus to provide the response to the
request from the first device; or information indicating that the modified request was forwarded from
the apparatus to the at least one second device (column 8, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 8, Kolev discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least
one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus
at least to:
provide, to a first device, a request of inter-user equipment coordination (figure 1, 130 a), the request
comprising a latency period; and receive, from a second device, a response to the request, the response
comprising transmission parameters associated with the first device (column 8, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 9, Kolev discloses, wherein the response from the second device comprises
information requested from the first device in the request (column 8, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 10, Kolev discloses the latency period is a time period in which the apparatus
requests to receive the response to the request; and the first device is determined to have a temporary
inability to provide the response to the request to satisfy the latency period included in the request
(column 8, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 11, Kolev discloses the latency period is a time period in which the apparatus
requests to receive the response to the request; and the first device is determined to have a permanent
inability to provide the response to the request (column 8, lines 15-30 ).
Regarding claim 12, Kolev discloses wherein the at least one second device satisfies at least one
criteria of: a distance between the first device and the second device; a mobility of the first device
relative to the second device;one or more capabilities of the second device; a type of the second device;
a similarity in an interference situation of the first device and the second device;
a communication state between the first device and the second device;
explicit consent from the second device to receive requests from the first device; or
an explicit recommendation of the second device to the first device from the apparatus (column 8, lines
15-30 ).
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.
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolev in view of
Rico Alvarino et al. (US 11,791,943 B2, hereinafter Rico).
Regarding claims 7 , Kolev discloses, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that,
when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to:
determine to change or modify a request (column 8, lines 15-25). Kolev does not disclose a cast
transmission type of the request to be forwarded, the cast transmission type comprising one of unicast,
groupcast, or broadcast, wherein the forwarding of the modified request uses the changed cast
transmission type, which is different than the cast transmission type used to transmit the request from
the first device. Rico discloses a cast transmission type of the request to be forwarded, the cast
transmission type comprising one of unicast, groupcast, or broadcast, wherein the forwarding of the
modified request uses the changed cast transmission type, which is different than the cast transmission
type used to transmit the request from the first device. Rico discloses cast transmission type of the
request to be forwarded, the cast transmission type comprising one of unicast, groupcast, or
broadcast, wherein the forwarding of the modified request uses the changed cast transmission type,
which is different than the cast transmission type used to transmit the request from the first device.
Rico discloses a cast transmission type of the request to be forwarded, the cast transmission type
comprising one of unicast, groupcast, or broadcast, wherein the forwarding of the modified request uses
the changed cast transmission type, which is different than the cast transmission type used to transmit
the request from the first device (column 6, lines 5-20). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to make the proposed
modification of the multicast/unicast switching as disclosed by Rico along with the modification of Kolev
to provide load balancing in a system that may benefit from different transmission (column 6 lines 5-20,
Rico).
Claims 13-15, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolev in view of Jiang et al. (US 2013/0097335 A1, hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 13 Kolev discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the
apparatus at least to: receive, from a first device, a forwarded request of inter-user equipment
coordination (figure 1, 30 A), the request comprising an indication associated with the first device and a
second device, which previously provided an initial request by a transmission to the first device, the
forwarded request comprising the initial request; and provide, to the second device, a response to the
forwarded request using transmission parameters associated with the transmission from the second
device to the first device (column 8, lines 15-30 ). Kolev does not disclose receive from a first device a forwarded request of inter-user equipment coordination. Jiang discloses receive from a first device a forwarded request of inter-user equipment coordination(¶[0109], ¶[0071]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the forwarded inter-user equipment coordination as disclosed by Jiang to provide a response to the initial request to the second device .
Regarding claim 14, Kolev discloses wherein the forwarded request comprises an indication of
an inability of the first device to provide a response to the initial request to the second device (column
8, lines 15-30 ).
Regarding claim 15, Kolev discloses the forwarded request comprises a latency period during
which the second device requests to receive a response to the initial request; and the inability is a
temporary inability to provide the response to the initial request to satisfy the latency period included in
the initial request (column 8, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 16, Kolev discloses, wherein the determined inability is a permanent inability to
provide the response to the initial request (column 8, lines 18-25, wherein the latency workload etc
include the inability of the apparatus to provide a response).
Regarding claim 17, Kolev discloses , wherein the indication further comprises one or more of
the following:transmission information indicating identifiers of the apparatus and the first device; or
information indicating that the modified request was forwarded from the apparatus to the at least one
second device (column 8, lines 18-30).
Regarding claim 18, Kolev discloses wherein the apparatus satisfies a criteria relative to the first
device of at least one of the following: a distance between the apparatus and the first device;
a mobility of the apparatus relative to first device; one or more capabilities of the apparatus;
a type of the apparatus; a similarity in an interference situation of the apparatus and the first device;
a communication state between the apparatus and the first device; explicit consent from the apparatus
to receive requests from the first device; or an explicit recommendation of the apparatus from the
second device (column 8, lines 18-30).
Regarding claim 20, Kolev discloses wherein the response to the forwarded request is provided
by transmitting, by the apparatus to the second device, the response to the forwarded request (figure 1,
column 8, lines 15-30).
2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolev in view of
Rico Alvarino et al. (US 11,791,943 B2, hereinafter Rico).
Regarding claim 19 , Kolev discloses, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that,
when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to:
determine to change or modify a request (column 8, lines 15-25). Kolev and Jiang do not disclose a cast
transmission type of the request to be forwarded, the cast transmission type comprising one of unicast,
groupcast, or broadcast, wherein the forwarding of the modified request uses the changed cast
transmission type, which is different than the cast transmission type used to transmit the request from
the first device. Rico discloses a cast transmission type of the request to be forwarded, the cast
transmission type comprising one of unicast, groupcast, or broadcast, wherein the forwarding of the
modified request uses the changed cast transmission type, which is different than the cast transmission
type used to transmit the request from the first device. Rico discloses cast transmission type of the
request to be forwarded, the cast transmission type comprising one of unicast, groupcast, or
broadcast, wherein the forwarding of the modified request uses the changed cast transmission type,
which is different than the cast transmission type used to transmit the request from the first device.
Rico discloses a cast transmission type of the request to be forwarded, the cast transmission type
comprising one of unicast, groupcast, or broadcast, wherein the forwarding of the modified request uses
the changed cast transmission type, which is different than the cast transmission type used to transmit
the request from the first device (column 6, lines 5-20). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to make the proposed
modification of the multicast/unicast switching as disclosed by Rico along with the modification of Kolev and Jiang to provide load balancing in a system that may benefit from different transmission (column 6 lines 5-20,
Rico).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00AM-4:30 PM.
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,
Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412