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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 1/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups I-II are not independent or distinct and there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. This is not found persuasive because the claim groups are unrelated to one another. Considering independent claims 1 and 9, claim 1 recites receiving an indication of relay capability where claim 9 recites an indication of relay. The indication that is received in claim 1 is not the same as the indication sent in claim 9. Furthermore, claim 1 recites acting as a relay based on the received indication and claim 9 recites acting as a remote relay based on the indication sent. These are different steps that achieve different results. Overall, claims 1 and 9 are directed to unrelated inventions that do not have overlapping subject matter and are not obvious variants. Considering independent claims 1 and 9 as compared to independent claim 14, claim 14 does not include any reference to either an “indication of relay capability” or an “indication or relay” or acting as a relay or acting as a remote UE. Therefore, none of the steps of claims 1 and 9 are reflected in claim 14. Furthermore, claims 1 and 9 do not include any reference to the steps of claim 14. Since the claims of groups I-III are unrelated and do not have any overlapping steps, they would require entirely different search strategies and search queries, thus creating a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/8/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 11/9/2023, 12/30/2024, 2/27/2025, and 9/11/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines, numbers, and letters are not durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined in Figures 2 and 4. Figures 2 and 4 are all in grayscale which cause the lines, numbers, and letters to not be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. Additionally, drawings must be black and white (monochrome) except when another form (grayscale or color) is the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For Figures 2 and 4, black and white drawings are sufficient to illustrate the claimed invention. Black and white drawings should be created and filed in monochrome, black only, no gray.
The drawings are objected to because the font size of the text is too small in Figure 3. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 1/8 inch in height.
The drawings are objected to because the sheet numbering is not in the middle for sheets 1-13. These numbers must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. Each sheet must include a top margin of at least 1 inch, a left side margin of at least 1 inch, a right side margin of at least 5/8 inch, and a bottom margin of at least 3/8 inch. One of the shorter sides of the sheet is regarded as its top.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is no antecedent basis for the UE-to-Network Relay. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lists multiple claim elements separated by a semicolon with no coordinating conjunction, such as “and” or “or”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the elements are additive or in the alternative. As such, the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of this Office Action, those claim elements will be interpreted as additive.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0054237 A1) (hereinafter Tseng).
Regarding claim 1, Tseng discloses a method for wireless communication (Paragraph 0031 discloses at least one of relay UE 104 and remote UEs 106 may include a wireless or mobile device with which a wireless telecommunication network(s) can be utilized for communication (e.g., voice and/or data communication). In this regard, relay UE 104 and remote UEs 106 can be any mobile computing device that communicates by way of a wireless network, for example, a 3G, 4G, or 5G NR network) comprising:
receiving an indication of relay capability (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0042 and 0043 disclose in block 268, diagram 200 includes providing relay network slice information from base station 202 to relay UE 204 and remote UE 206. In block 268, base station 202 delivers the corresponding Relay network slice configuration messages to relay UE 204 and remote UE 206. Then, relay UE 204 and remote UE 206 may configure relay network slice instance upon receiving their corresponding Relay network slice configuration messages from base station 202. Each of the Relay network slice configuration messages may include information, such as relay service type. For relay service type, the Relaying network slice configuration messages may indicate which type of relay network slice (e.g., Layer-3 relaying or Layer-2 relaying) is provided for relay UE 204 and remote UE 206. Layer-3 relaying refers to a type of relay service in which the activation and control of the relay service is decided and configured in the CN level (e.g., a ProSe Function in CN 208). Layer-2 relaying refers to a type of relay service in which the activation and control of the relay service is decided and configured in the RAN level (e.g., by base station 202) after the relay network slice indication. That is, in Layer-2 relaying, the base station (e.g., base station 202) activates and controls the relay service);
acting as a relay based on the indication of the relay capability (Figure 1 and paragraph 0032 disclose relay UE 104 is a UE configured to forward data from base station 102 to one or more remote UEs 106, and vice versa. Figure 2 and paragraphs 0043 and 0044 disclose for relay service type, the Relaying network slice configuration messages may indicate which type of relay network slice (e.g., Layer-3 relaying or Layer-2 relaying) is provided for relay UE 204 and remote UE 206. Layer-3 relaying refers to a type of relay service in which the activation and control of the relay service is decided and configured in the CN level (e.g., a ProSe Function in CN 208). Layer-2 relaying refers to a type of relay service in which the activation and control of the relay service is decided and configured in the RAN level (e.g., by base station 202) after the relay network slice indication. That is, in Layer-2 relaying, the base station (e.g., base station 202) activates and controls the relay service. The Relaying network slice configuration messages may also indicate a network function configuration for the relay network slice instance for relay UE 204 and remote UE 206. The network function configuration includes the network functions which relay UE 204 and remote UE 206 each need to select for the relay service).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Tseng further discloses wherein the indication is received by a relay user equipment (“UE”) from a basestation and the relay UE acts as the relay between the basestation and a remote UE (Figure 1 and paragraph 0032 disclose relay UE 104 is a UE configured to forward data from base station 102 to one or more remote UEs 106, and vice versa. Figure 2 and paragraphs 0043 and 0044 disclose for relay service type, the Relaying network slice configuration messages may indicate which type of relay network slice (e.g., Layer-3 relaying or Layer-2 relaying) is provided for relay UE 204 and remote UE 206. Layer-3 relaying refers to a type of relay service in which the activation and control of the relay service is decided and configured in the CN level (e.g., a ProSe Function in CN 208). Layer-2 relaying refers to a type of relay service in which the activation and control of the relay service is decided and configured in the RAN level (e.g., by base station 202) after the relay network slice indication. That is, in Layer-2 relaying, the base station (e.g., base station 202) activates and controls the relay service. The Relaying network slice configuration messages may also indicate a network function configuration for the relay network slice instance for relay UE 204 and remote UE 206. The network function configuration includes the network functions which relay UE 204 and remote UE 206 each need to select for the relay service).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Tseng further discloses wherein the acting as a relay comprises sidelink discovery or sidelink communication for relay operation (Paragraph 0064 discloses relay UE 204 may broadcast sidelink control signals based on the received system information from the target cell. As shown in FIG. 5, relay UE 204 broadcasts at least one SLSS and one relay discovery message in each discovery period. The radio resource configuration and control parameters of the discovery period are provided in the broadcasted sidelink control signals).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Liu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0117489 A1) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2 above, Tseng discloses the claimed invention except explicitly disclosing wherein the relay capability comprises that the basestation can support layer 2 relay only, can support layer 3 relay only, can support both layer 2 relay and layer 3 relay, or that relay is not allowed.
In analogous art, Liu discloses wherein the relay capability comprises that the basestation can support layer 2 relay only, can support layer 3 relay only, can support both layer 2 relay and layer 3 relay, or that relay is not allowed (Paragraph 0067 discloses the network side device may indicate its supported relay operation type in the following manner: The first indication field includes three options: L3 relay operation, L2 relay operation, and both (that is, both L3 relay operation and L2 relay operation being supported); or the first indication field includes four options: L3 relay operation, L2 relay operation, both (that is, both L3 relay operation and L2 relay operation being supported), and none (no relay operation being supported)).
It 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 to incorporate an indication from a network side device that the relay type operation is L3 relay operation, L2 relay operation, both (that is, both L3 relay operation and L2 relay operation being supported), or none, as described in Liu, with a base station delivering a Relay network slice configuration message to indicate L2 or L3 relay operation, as described in Tseng, because doing so is simple substitution of one known element (L2, L3, both or none) for another (L2 or L3) to obtain predictable results. Combining an indication from a network side device that the relay type operation is L3 relay operation, L2 relay operation, both (that is, both L3 relay operation and L2 relay operation being supported), or none of Liu with a base station delivering a Relay network slice configuration message to indicate L2 or L3 relay operation of Tseng was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Liu.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Tseng and Liu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Hoang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0284206 A1) (hereinafter Hoang).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Tseng discloses the claimed invention except explicitly disclosing wherein a system information block (“SIB”) includes the indication.
In analogous art, Hoang discloses wherein a system information block (“SIB”) includes the indication (Paragraph 0285 discloses the WTRU acting as the L3 relay may receive the configuration information from a system information block (SIB)).
It 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 to incorporate a WTRU acting as the L3 relay receiving configuration information from a system information block (SIB), as described in Hoang, with a relay UE receiving Relay network slice configuration messages from a network side device, as described in Tseng, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining a WTRU acting as the L3 relay receiving configuration information from a system information block (SIB) of Hoang with a relay UE receiving Relay network slice configuration messages from a network side device of Tseng was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hoang.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Tseng and Hoang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 8 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering claim 4, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Tseng and Liu, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of wherein when the relay capability can support both layer 2 and layer 3, the relay capability selected for the relay UE acting as the relay is based on an indication of preference from the remote UE or from an upper layer of relay UE in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claim 4.
Considering claim 7, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Tseng, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of checking an authorization for UE-to-Network Relay discovery and communication based on the indication; and sending a sidelink relay configuration based on the relay capability and the authorization in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claim 7.
Claims 8 also includes allowable subject matter by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Novlan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0157254 A1) discloses methods and apparatus for control information resource allocation for D2D communications;
Sadiq et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0055282 A1) discloses connection setup in "device-to-device relayed uplink, direct downlink" architecture for cellular networks;
Wallentin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0120728 A1) discloses radio resource control connection establishment;
Xu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0051758 A1) discloses radio resource control connection procedures for remote wireless devices; and
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0160956 A1) discloses packet routing for layer-2-based sidelink relay.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to MARK G. PANNELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4245. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (Mountain Time).
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571) 272-7915. 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.
/Mark G. Pannell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642