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.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 19 May 2026. Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are pending in the application.
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), wherein the tethering relay path includes a Uu link between a base station and a relay UE and a second link between the relay UE and a remote UE (Fig. 7G, [0186]-[0187] disclosing a relay architecture including a tethering link between the AR glasses and a phone and a link between the phone and the gNB), and wherein the UE is the relay UE (Fig. 7H, 5G Device 786e) or the remote UE (Fig. 7I, AR Glass Device 788d);
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 784 in 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues there is no teaching in the reference of record Ma of “the latency report includes information for an end-to-end latency for the tethering relay path. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this feature is some type of “information” that is related to the end-to-end latency (i.e., “for an end-to-end latency”); and that is related to the tethering relay path (i.e., “for the tethering relay path”). Applicant’s arguments appear to hinge on a narrower definition that the broad and generic claim language of, “for an end-to-end latency for the tethering relay path.” Ma expressly discloses an end-to-end latency as it relates to a path which includes a link between the phone 784b and the gNB 784c (i.e., Fig. 7 illustrating the path between phone 784b and gNB 784c corresponding to the claimed Uu link) and a connection between the relay UE and a remote UE (e.g., Fig. 7G, [0190] tethering link segment between the AR Glasses 784a and phone 784b). Applicant’s feature “the tethering relay path includes a Uu link between a base station and a relay UE and a second link between the relay UE and a remote UE” is an open ended limitation that does not preclude the tethering relay link including additional links. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are flawed in that they imply that applicant’s interpretation of the disputed features are much narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation given the claims for examination of said claims on their merits (arguments at pg. 7, “De2e is…NOT the AR glass to the gNB…Dn,1…is…NOT the AR to the gNB”).
Ma expressly discloses an embodiment which determines an end-to end latency De2e for a path that includes the links discussed above. It is not unreasonable to conclude the end-to-end latency of Ma supports a prima facie showing of anticipation of “information for an end-to-end latency for the tethering relay path” “wherein the tethering relay path includes a Uu link between a base station and a relay UE and a second link between the relay UE and a remote UE.” (See Fig. 7G, [0187], [0190], 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; step 6, [0198] disclosing the AR glasses report the end-to-end delay De2e).
Moreover, in the alternative embodiment cited in support of the claim rejections, Ma discloses measurement of information “for an end-to-end latency for the tethering relay path.” Ma discloses the remote E (e.g., AR Glasses 784a) can determine the latency Dn,1 of the tethering link which is disclosed as information for an end-to-end latency (Fig. 7G, [0187] De2e includes tethering link delay Dn,1; 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 Dn,1 of the tethering link) for a path including the links between the base station and the relay UE and the link between the relay UE and the remote UE as discussed above. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to consider these portions of Ma as supporting a prima facie showing of anticipation of “information for an end-to-end latency for the tethering relay path” “wherein the tethering relay path includes a Uu link between a base station and a relay UE and a second link between the relay UE and a remote UE.”
Applicant asserts “the ping method, relied upon by the Office Action, cannot inherently measure AR glasses-to-gNB latency”. Examiner respectfully disagrees; however, examiner does not rely on this type of interpretation in support of the claim rejections. The well-known ping method can measure round trip latency between any two points in a network, and Ma expressly discloses halving said round trip latency to determine a one-way latency. In any case, these assertions by applicant are directed towards features that are not recited in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “measure AR glasses-to-gNB latency”) 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).
Applicant draws attention to the ICMP timestamp taught by Ma. Indeed, Ma teaches a technique which uses timestamps inserted into messages in order to determine latencies ([0200]-[0201]).
Applicant asserts Ma does not disclose “obtaining, by the UE, a latency measurement configuration for a tethering relay path”. This assertion is flawed for the same reasons as given above. The claim does not limit the tethering relay path to be a path starting at the remote UE and ending at the gNB (arguments at pg. 7, “De2e is…NOT the AR glass to the gNB…Dn,1…is…NOT the AR to the gNB”). It is not unreasonable to consider the portions of Ma cited in support of the rejection as supporting a prima facie showing of anticipation of the claimed measurement configuration. The UE carries out the measurements disclosed; therefore, it must have obtained said configuration in some way. Again, this argument is based on an interpretation that is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the features “a tethering relay path”, and “for a tethering relay path”.
With respect to applicant’s attempted traversal of the Official Notice taken by examiner, applicant asserts, “The integration of timing mechanisms directly into the headers of the 5G Layer-2 protocol stack (e.g., PDCP or Adaptation layers) is highly specific, non-trivial, and deeply entwined with 3GPP standardization. It is not a universally unquestionable fact.” These are merely attorney arguments which are not supported by any factual evidence. Such arguments have no probative value. Further, applicant asserts, “Claim 3 is not directed to any timestamp used anywhere in a communication system. Claim 3 recites the location of the measurement timestamp used in the UE-assisted procedure for the packet latency measurement.” This argument is directed towards features that are not recited in the claims. The claims merely recite inserting a timestamp in a PDCP header and this feature is not tied in any meaningful way in the claims to a packet latency measurement. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “[t]he integration of timing mechanisms directly into the headers of the 5G Layer-2 protocol stack”; and a “timestamp used…for the packet latency measurement”) 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). Accordingly, applicant’s response does not appear to be an adequate traversal of the Official Notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Accordingly, the well-known statement that the feature of inserting timestamps into messages in the manner recited in claim 3 is taken to be applicant’s admitted prior art.
Moreover, in any case, as discussed above, Ma discloses inclusion of timestamps in messages which are used to determine latency in a UE assisted procedure ([0200]-[0201] as cited in support of the rejection of claim 2 from which claim 3 depends). The only difference between the closest prior art and claim 3 is alternative ways to convey said timestamp. See Synnergren et al. (US 2010/0322122 A1) which provides documentary evidence that it is well-known to insert timestamps in to PDCP headers at [0015] disclosing “The timestamp will be included in the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) header of a special PDCP packet type.” That is to say, there is nothing new or particularly challenging about placing timestamps in a PDCP header and one of ordinary skill in the art, with this knowledge, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in sending the timestamp taught by Ma in a PDCP header and simply using the timestamps in the manner of the UE-assisted procedure disclosed by Ma.
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 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
Prosecution Insights