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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to applicant's 06/02/2026 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. This application is a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. 1.114 filed on 06/02/2026. Claims 22-35, 37-41 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 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.
4. 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 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
5. Claims 22, 24-27, 33-35, 37-41 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 (Fig. 4; 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), requesting the first communication device to operate as a relay node for relaying communications 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; and scheduling the first communication device so that relaying communications of the second communication device is prioritized over communications of the first 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); and scheduling the first communication device so that relaying communications of the second communication device is prioritized over communications of the first communication device (Figs. 4-6; Col. 7, line 26 to Col. 9, line 13).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Hooli et al. (US#8,825,040) 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, 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 and Hooli et al.: Fig. 2; Col.5, lines 3-19).
Regarding claim 35, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, 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 and Hooli et al.: Fig. 7; Col. 9, lines 14-40).
Regarding claim 37, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) 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, Gulati in view of Hooli teaches the method of claim 22 examined above, Gulati et al. (US#10,674,425) 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
6. 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.
7. 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
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Balakrishnan et al. (US#2024/0147557) is cited to show communication device and method for sustaining ultra-reliable communication in wireless communication network.
The Fallgren et al. (US#2014/0171062) shows wireless devices, network node and methods for handling relay assistance in a wireless communications network.
The Gunnarsson et al. (US#9,237,491) shows method and device for a relay node.
The Iwamura et al. (US#9001705) shows mobile communication system and radio BS.
The Wei et al. (US#11,212,875) shows telecommunications apparatuses and methods.
The Kahtava et al. (US#11,304,080) shows methods, BS, mobile node and relay node.
The Takano (US#9,001,793) communication system, apparatus, method and computer program product.
The Kimura (US#10,785,659) shows relay station, method, radio communication system and radio communication apparatus.
The Martin (US#11,375,433) shows terminal device, method and system for coordinating relay node access in wireless telecommunications system.
The Pitakdumrongkija et al. (US#9,107,228) shows radio communication system and control method of radio resource allocation.
The Wang (US#12,335,841) shows connection establishment and bearer mapping for UE-to-network relay.
9. 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) find 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. "
10. 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.
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, 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.
11. 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
06/15/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights