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 and Argument
1. This communication is in response to applicant's 01/12/2026 communications in the application of Balakrishnan et al. for the "NETWORK NODE AND METHOD FOR SUSTAINING ULTRA-RELIABLE COMMUNICATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICA TION NETWORK" filed 08/16/2023. This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2021/056508, International Filing Date: 03/15/2021. The amendment and response have been entered and made of record. Claims 22-41 are pending in the present application.
2. Applicant’s remarks and argument to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
3. In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection. The Examiner first emphasizes for the record that the claims employ a broader in scope than the Applicant’s disclosure in all aspects. In addition, the Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. Since the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim limitations in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretations while determining patentability of the disclosed invention. See MPEP 2111. In other words, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). Any term that is not clearly defined in the specification must be given its plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.01. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The interpretation of the claims by their broadest reasonable interpretation reduces the possibility that, once the claims are issued, the claims are interpreted more broadly than justified. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the failure to significantly narrow definition or scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to distinctly define the claimed invention.
4. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, i.e., Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) in view of Hooli et al. (US#8,825,040) as proposed in the office action. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
5. Applicant's argument with respect to the rejected claims that the cited reference fail to teach or suggest wherein “the network node determines whether communication between the network node and a second communication device is to be relayed via a relay node” (page 13, second paragraphs). In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, Applicant’s attention is directed to Fig. 4 of Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) for the teaching of the relay connection in a wireless system 800, in which Wireless devices 804, 806, 808 may act as relays to base station 802 because they are in coverage area 818 for base station 802. Wireless devices 810 and 814 may act as relays to base station 812 because they are in coverage area 820 of base station 812. Accordingly, wireless device 816 may communicate with the base station 802 through one of the wireless devices 804, 806, or 808. Similarly, wireless device 816 may communicate with the base station 812 through one of the wireless devices 810 or 814. In same examples, performing relay selection in an eNB centric manner is when the eNB, e.g., base station 802 or 812, manages the wireless device 804, 806, 808, 810, or 814 that acts as the relay for wireless device 816. Wireless device 816 may be a device that needs to access a base station 802, 812 through a relay device, such as another wireless device 804, 806, 808, 810, 814. Wireless device 816 may generally be outside or at the edge of the coverage area 818, 820. The base station 802 may inform the selected relay UE (one of the wireless devices 804, 806, 808) to initiate a relay-association procedure with wireless device 816. Similarly, the base station 812 may inform the selected relay UE (one of the wireless devices 810, 814) to initiate a relay-association procedure with wireless device 816 (Col. 12; lines 4-56 & Col. 13, lines 47-52: At a BS 802, 812, managing and selecting the relay node for relay connections in a wireless communication network 800).
Since no substantial amendments have been made and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the claims are drawn to the same invention and the text of the prior art rejection can be found in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
7. Claims 22, 24-27, 33-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) in view of Hooli et al. (US#8,825,040).
Regarding claim 22, the references disclose a system and method for managing relay connections in a wireless communication network, according to the essential features of the claims. Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) discloses a method performed in a network node configured to operate in a wireless communications network, wherein the network node is configured to communicate with a first communication device over a first communication link between the network node and the first communication device, and to communicate with a second communication device over a second communication link between the network node and the second communication device (see Fig. 4 for a communication system 800 includes base station 802 and a plurality of UE's such as wireless devices 804, 806, 808 that may be in the communication with base station 802, in which the wireless device 816 may make use of a relay. The relay may allow for the wireless device 816 to begin communication with a network, e.g., communication system 800), wherein the method comprises: determining whether communication with the second communication device is to be relayed via a relay node (Figs. 1, 4 Col. 7, line 64 to Col. 8, line 13 & Col. 13, lines 3-35: The second UE may request a relay UE to establish a connection to the wireless communications network through the relay UE); determining that the first communication device is able to act as a relay node for the second communication device (Fig. 1; Col. 2; lines 15-26 & Col. 7; line 63 to Col. 8, line 13: a wireless device such as the UE may receive a relay search message from a second UE requesting a relay UE to establish a connection to the network through the relay UE); when it is determined that communication with the second communication device is to be relayed via a relay node, requesting the first communication device to operate as a relay node for relaying communica tions to the second communication device (Fig. 1;Col. 2, lines 15-26 & Col. 7; line 63 to Col. 8, line 13: inform the first UE that the first UE has been selected by the base station to initiate a relay association procedure with the second UE include a request to be the relay UE for the second UE); communicating with the second communication device over a relay link from the network node to the first communication device and from the first communication device to the second communication device (Fig. 4; Col. 15, lines 22-27: the base station 802 may use the measurement reports to decide to move the relay link from one relay UE, e.g., wireless device 806 to another UE, e.g., wireless device 804, or instruct the wireless device 816, (via the associated relay UE) to reinitiate the relay association process). It’s noted that a relay station is an entity that can receive a transmission of data from an upstream station (e.g., a BS or a UE) and send a transmission of the data to a downstream station (e.g., a UE or a BS). A relay station may also be a UE that can relay transmissions for other UEs. In the example shown in Fig. 4, a relay station 810 may communicate with macro BS 812 and a UE 816 in order to facilitate communication between BS 812 and UE 816. A relay station may also be referred to as a relay BS, a relay base station, a relay, and/or the like. P2P communication between UEs may also allow one of the UEs to act as a relay for the other UE, thereby enabling the other UE to connect to an eNB (Col. 11, line 58 to Col. 15, line 27).
However, Galati reference does not disclose expressly wherein requesting the first communication device to operate as a relay node for relaying communications to the second communication device. In the same field of endeavor, Hooli et al. (US#8,825,040) teaches in Fig. 4 a diagram illustrated process for selecting a communication connection for a terminal device, in which at block 412, the terminal device establishes the device-to-device connection with the selected relay terminal and transmits to the relay terminal a request to establish the relayed connection to the base station. As a consequence, the relay terminal negotiates the relayed connection with the serving base station and links the device-to-device connection to a direct cellular radio connection of the relay terminal to provide the relayed connection (Col. 7, lines 56-64: the relayed connection is established through another terminal device acting as a relay terminal for the connection being relayed as connection request to the BS).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently managing relay connections in a wireless communication network, and would have applied Hooli’s controlling the connection of a terminal device to a cellular telecommunication network into Gulati’s techniques for relay connections in a wireless communication network. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to apply Hooli’s selection of connection type in cellular system into Gulati’s systems, methods, and apparatus for managing a relay connection in a wireless communication network with the motivation being to provide a method and system for dynamic relaying in a wireless communications network.
Regarding claim 24, the reference further teaches wherein receiving a request from the second communication device indicating that it has a declining battery level; and based on the request, determining that the communication with the second communication device is to be relayed via a relay node (Hooli et al.: Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 25, the reference further teaches wherein communicating with the second communication device over the second communication link in addition to over the relay link (Gulati et al.: Fig. 4; Col. 15, lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 26, the reference further teaches wherein communicating with the second communication device over the relay link comprises sending most critical communications to the second communication device over the relay link (Gulati et al.: Col. 3; lines 22-38).
Regarding claim 27, the reference further teaches wherein determining whether the quality of the second communication link meets a required threshold; based on determining that the quality of the second communication link meets the required threshold, sending a request to the first communication device to release from operation as a relay node for the second communication device; communicating with the second communication device over the second communication link instead of the relay link (Gulati et al.: Figs. 5, 6C; Col. 16, lines 23-34 & Col. 18, lines 10-36).
Regarding claim 33, the reference further teaches wherein controlling the movement of the first communication device such that the first communication device is positioned where the quality of the relay link meets a required threshold (Gulati et al.: Figs. 4-5; Col. 2, lines 8-14 & Col. 16, lines 23-34).
Regarding claim 34, the reference further teaches wherein predicting at which positions the second communication device is likely to lose its connection to the network node, and controlling the movement of the first communication device based on the prediction (Gulati et al.: Figs 6A-C; Col. 16, lines 35-60. Hooli et al.: Fig. 2; Col.5, lines 3-19).
Regarding claim 35, the reference further teaches wherein regulating the velocity of the first communication device to avoid entering an area where the communication channel quality to the network node does not or will not meet a required threshold (Gulati et al.: Col. 3; lines 22-62. Hooli et al.: Fig. 7; Col. 9, lines 14-40).
Regarding claim 36, the reference further teaches wherein scheduling the first communication device so that relaying the communications of the second communication device is prioritized over the communications of the first communication device (Hooli et al.: Figs. 4-6; Col. 7, line 26 to Col. 9, line 13).
Regarding claim 37, the reference further teaches wherein determining that the first communication device is able to act as a relay node for the second communication device comprises determining that the first communication device has been appointed as a dedicated relay node (DRN) in the wireless communication network (Gulati et al.: Col. 2; lines 15-37).
Regarding claim 38, the reference further teaches wherein the first communication device is at a fixed location; or the first communication device is mobile but currently not being used, and controlling the movement of the first communication device such that the first communication device is positioned where the quality of the relay link meets a required threshold (Gulati et al.: Fig. 1; Col. 7; lines 43-62). It should be noted that a relay node may be stationary or mobile. Still further, the relay node may be a dedicated relay node, or it may instead be some transceiver in the communication network that operates in the relay mode when not fully occupied with other tasks.
Regarding claim 39, the reference further teaches wherein determining that the first communication device is able to act as a relay node for the second communication device comprises determining that the first communication device has been appointed as a master node that can operate as a relay node when no other communication device has capability and willingness to act as a relay node (Gulati et al.: Fig. 1; Col. 2; lines 15-37 & Col. 7, line 63 to Col. 8, line 26).
Regarding claim 40, the reference further teaches wherein determining whether communication with the second communication device is to be relayed via a relay node is based on an incentive score of the second communication device, wherein the incentive score indicates a degree to which the second communication device restricted its movement and acted as a relay node for other communication devices during past blockage periods (Gulati et al.: Fig. 1; Col. 3; lines 22-38 & Col. 7, line 63 to Col. 8, line 26).
Regarding claim 41, it is apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 22 discussed above. Therefore, claims 16, 28 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 23, 28-32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receiving a request from the second communication device indicating a requirement for communication link quality between the second communication device and the network node; determining whether the quality of the second communication link meets or will meet the requirement for communication link quality; and based on determining that the quality of the second communication link does not or will not meet the requirement for communication link quality, determining that the communication with the second communication device is to be relayed via a relay node; wherein creating a group of candidate relay nodes comprising one or more communication devices which are in a coverage area of the network node and have capability and willingness to support relay node functionality; and assessing prioritizations among the group of the candidate relay nodes; and determining that the first communication device is able to act as a relay node for the second communication device comprises selecting the first communication device from the group of the candidate relay nodes based on the assessed prioritizations., as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
11. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) 07find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION 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 extension fee 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
14. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
Feb. 14, 2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477