DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08 July 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information marked with strikethrough therein has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I in the reply filed on 28 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 28 January 2026.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: configuration module, measurement module and report module in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Applicant has disclosed hardware or a combination of hardware and software configured with the algorithms discloses at Fig. 2, [0025]-[0027]; Fig. 3, [0028]-[0032]; Fig. 4, [0033]-[0036]; Fig. 5, [0037]-[0038]; Fig. 6, [0039]-[0043]; and Fig. 7, [0045]-[0066] in the as filed specification.
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)(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) 1-2, 5-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 2024/0113975 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network comprising:
obtaining, by the UE, a latency measurement configuration ([0186] disclosing “UEs such AR glasses”; Fig. 7I, steps 1 and 4-6, [0197]-[0198] disclosing the acts performed by the AR glasses, implicitly disclosing the AR glasses have been configured to perform the technique) for a tethering relay path (Fig. 7G AR Glasses 784a, [0186] disclosing “UEs such AR glasses 784a” in a 5G Relay architecture comprising a tethering link from the AR glasses to a phone device 784b (a “5G device”) seen as the relay);
performing a packet latency measurement with a UE-assisted procedure based on the latency measurement configuration (Fig. 7I, Steps 1 and 4-5, [0197] disclosing the AR glasses determine the one-way end-to-end delay by halving the RTT delay of the ping messages); and
sending a latency report based on the packet latency measurement (Fig. 7I, step 6, [0198] disclosing the AR glasses report the end-to-end delay De2e to the 5G device 788e), wherein the latency report includes information for an end-to-end latency for the tethering relay path (Fig. 7G, [0187] disclosing the components of an end-to-end delay De2e).
In an alternative embodiment, Ma discloses obtaining, by the UE, a latency measurement configuration ([0171] disclosing a 5G device may be a UE; Fig. 7H 5G device 786e, steps 1-2 and 4, [0193]-[0194] disclosing the steps performed by the 5G devices, implicitly disclosing the 5G device has been configured to perform the technique) for a tethering relay path (Fig. 7G AR Glasses 784a, [0186] disclosing “UEs such AR glasses 784a” in a 5G Relay architecture comprising a tethering link from the AR glasses to a phone device 784b (a “5G device”) seen as the relay);
performing a packet latency measurement with a UE-assisted procedure based on the latency measurement configuration (Fig. 7H, steps 1 and 2, [0193] disclosing the 5G device determines the RTT of the tethering link which can be halved to determine the one-way delay of the tethering link); and
sending a latency report based on the packet latency measurement (Fig. 7H, step 4, [0194] disclosing the 5G device reports the one-way delay estimate Dn,1), wherein the latency report includes information for an end-to-end latency for the tethering relay path (Fig. 7G, [0187] disclosing the components of an end-to-end delay De2e comprising Dn,1).
Regarding claim 2, Ma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE-assisted procedure includes inserting a measurement timestamp ([0201]) or recording timing of a predefined transport block (TB) of the packet ([0200]).
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein latency report includes one or more elements comprising a one-bit indicator indicates an activation of a tethering mode, packet transmission latency information (Fig. 7I step 6, [0198]), and tethering related information ([0186]).
Regarding claim 6, Ma discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the packet transmission latency information includes one or more latency elements comprising a measured path information, measured packet information, latency characteristic, and a latency value (Fig. 7G, [0186]-[0187], Fig. 7I, [0197]-[0198]).
Regarding claim 7, Ma discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the tethering related information includes one or more side elements comprising a UE buffer status indicating queueing on tethering relay path, a listen-before-talk (LBT) latency, a channel busy ratio, a transmission failure rate, and a channel quality report of the tethering relay path ([0186] QoS parameters, Fig. 7I, step 6, [0198]).
Regarding claim 8, Ma appears to disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the latency report is reported via a radio resource control (RRC) message or a MAC control element (CE) ([0194] disclosing the Media Access function reports the one-way delay estimate Dn,1).
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE is a relay UE and the tethering relay path includes a Uu link between the UE and a base station and a second link between the UE and a remote UE (with respect to the alternative embodiment addressed above with respect to claim 1 in Fig. 7H, the 5G device is seen as a relay UE, see Fig. 1D, [0064] disclosing the glasses (e.g., remote UE connected to the UE which communicates with the gNB via cellular link 175 (i.e., Uu link in the field of endeavor 5G)).
Regarding claim 10, Ma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE is a remote UE of the tethering relay path (Fig. 7G, [0186] disclosing the AR glasses are a UE connected to the network via UE 784bin a relay architecture; see Fig. 1D, [0064]).
Regarding claim 18-20, the claims are directed towards a user equipment comprising a transceiver and means for performing the method of claims 1-2 and 5; Ma discloses equivalent means (Fig. 10, [0222]-[0224]); accordingly, claims 18-20 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1-2 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2024/0113975 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ma does not expressly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the measurement timestamp is inserted at an adaptation layer, a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, or a transport layer; however, examiner takes official notice that it is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art to insert timestamps in the manner claimed.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2024/0113975 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0409990 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ma does not expressly disclose the following; however, Wang suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the latency measurement configuration includes one or more elements comprising a reporting period for a periodic latency report, one or more reporting criteria for event triggered latency report, and a throttling timer ([0052], [0092]-[0093] disclosing periodic and event triggered reporting of sidelink measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques of Ma as taught by Wang because Ma teaches the tethering link may be a sidelink and the delay over the tethering link may change over time ([0191], [0193]) and the techniques of Wang can ensure the quality of service of the communications ([0005]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2024/0113975 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0137556 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ma does not disclose the following; however, Park suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the tethering relay path is part of a mesh relay link ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques of Ma as suggested by Park because this can improve connectivity of the network ([0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461