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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 1/12/2024 havingclaims 1-20 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 10/09/2023 is a is a 371 of PCT/IB2022/052983 03/30/2022
PCT/IB2022/052983 has PRO 63/173,156 04/09/2021 are acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 10/09/2023 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 10/09/2023 is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. 10.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has amended claim 1 now recite, “in response to detecting that the transmission of the TB failed, transmit the TB without regenerating the TB to a second device over a second communication link associated with a second radio access technology interface that is different from the first radio access technology interface, for forwarding to the first device". Examiner was unable to find the support for the specification “transmit the TB without regenerating”, there is no mention of “regenerating” in the original specification. Applicant states that support is found in [0043—0046], [0103-0108]. After a review of these paragraphs and the rest of the specification, the specification does not provide support for the above. Similar rejection applies to other independent claims recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication US 20230022611 A1 FUJISHIRO et al. (Hereinafter “FUJISHIRO ") in view of US PG Pub US 20220232659 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim).
As per claim 1, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: transmit a transport block ("TB") that is intended for a first device to the first device over a first communication link associated with a first radio access technology interface(para 0088-0090], fig. 11, remote UE 100-1 is sending a transport block to a first device such as relay device associated with PC5 technologies interface); detect that the transmission of the TB to the first device over the first communication link failed (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, remote UE 100-1 detect that the transmission of the TB failed); and in response to detecting that the transmission of the TB failed, transmit the TB to a second device over a second communication link associated with a second radio access technology interface different from the first radio access technology interface for forwarding to the first device (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, in response to detecting a transmission has failed transmitting to a second device 200-2 with different radio access technology other than PC5 ).
Kim teaches transmit the TB without regenerating the TB to a second device over a second communication link (para 0505, transmitting the data without regenerating over second communication link ) 20220232659
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of FUJISHIRO by transmit the TB without regenerating the TB to a second device over a second communication link as suggested by Kim, this modification would benefit FUJISHIRO, Haumont for enabling a better handover process.
As per claim 2, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, Kim teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the first radio access technology interface comprises a new radio ("NR") sidelink ("SL") PC5 interface and the second radio access technology interface comprises a NR Uu interface (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, first radio access technology is PC5 and second radio access technology is NR Uu interface).
As per claim 3, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, KIM teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the first device is a second user equipment ("UE") that is communicatively connected to the UE and the second device is a base unit that is communicatively connected to the UE and one or more additional UEs (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, wherein the first device is a second user equipment ("UE") that is communicatively connected to the UE and the second device is a base unit that is communicatively connected to the UE and one or more additional UEs).
As per claim 4, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, KIM teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the TB to the second device using a medium access control ("MAC") control element ("CE"), the MAC CE comprising an identifier for the first device that is an intended recipient of the TB (para 0064], UE to transmit the TB to the second device using a medium access control ("MAC") control element ("CE"), the MAC CE comprising an identifier for the first device that is an intended recipient of the TB).
As per claim 5, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, KIM teaches the UE of claim 4, wherein the MAC CE comprises a field indicating to the second device to forward the TB to the first device as indicated by the identifier for the first device (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, device 200-2 transfer the block information from remote to the first device).
As per claim 6, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, KIM teaches the UE of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to map the MAC CE to a scheduling request ("SR") configuration for requesting SL resources for transmitting the MAC CE to the second device (para 0081], sending scheduling request ("SR") configuration for requesting SL resources for transmitting the MAC CE to the second device).
As per claim 10, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, KIM teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the first communication link and the second communication link are operated by a multi-radio access technology ("RAT") split bearer and wherein the multi-RAT split bearer comprises a first new radio ("NR") radio link control ("RLC") bearer and a second PC5 RLC bearer (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, wherein the first communication link and the second communication link are operated by a multi-radio access technology ("RAT") split bearer and wherein the multi-RAT split bearer comprises a first new radio ("NR") radio link control ("RLC") bearer and a second PC5 RLC bearer ).
As per claim 11, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, KIM teaches the UE of claim 10, wherein the first NR RLC bearer and the second PC5 RLC bearer are associated with a common SL packet data convergence protocol ("PDCP") entity (para 0067], wherein the first NR RLC bearer and the second PC5 RLC bearer are associated with a common SL packet data convergence protocol ("PDCP") entity ).
As per claim 12, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, KIM teaches the UE of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit every Nth TB over the first communication link and the second communication link simultaneously (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, UE to transmit every Nth TB over the first communication link and the second communication link simultaneously).
As per claim 14, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmitting a transport block ("TB") that is intended for a first device to [[a]] the first device over a first communication link associated with a first radio access technology interface (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, remote UE 100-1 is sending a transport block to a first device such as relay device associated with PC5 technologies interface);; detecting that the transmission of the TB to the first device over the first communication link failed (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, remote UE 100-1 detect that the transmission of the TB failed);; and in response to detecting that the transmission of the TB failed, transmit the TB without regenerating the TB to a second device over a second communication link associated with a second radio access technology interface that is different from the first radio access technology interface, for forwarding to the first device (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, in response to detecting a transmission has failed transmitting to a second device 200-2 with different radio access technology other than PC5 ).
Kim teaches transmit the TB without regenerating the TB to a second device over a second communication link (para 0505, transmitting the data without regenerating over second communication link ).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US Publication US 20230022611 A1 Koutsaftis et al. (Hereinafter “Koutsaftis") in view of US PG Pub US 20220232659 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim).
As per claim 15, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO teaches a network equipment (NE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the NE to: receive, in response to a detected transmission failure on a first radio access technology interface, a transport block ("TB") from a first device, the TB intended for a second device communicatively connected to the NE and the first device in a ring topology (para 0088-0090], fig. 10,11, NE device 100-2 receives a transmission block intended for second device 200-1, communicatively connected to the NE and the first device in a ring topology ); determine an identifier for the second device based on the TB (para 0039], fig. 1 (b) 3, 4, based on the handover information determining an identifier for the second device based on the TB fro transmitting); and transmit, the TB to the identified second device over a new radio ("NR") Uu interface for forwarding toward the second device. (para 0039],[0114] fig. 1 (b) 3, 4, transmitting, the TB to the identified second device over a new radio ("NR") Uu interface for forwarding toward the second device).
Kim teaches transmit the TB without regenerating the TB to a second device over a second communication link (para 0505, transmitting the data without regenerating over second communication link ) 20220232659
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of Koutsaftis by transmit the TB without regenerating the TB to a second device over a second communication link as suggested by Kim, this modification would benefit Koutsaftis for enabling a better handover process.
As per claim 16, (Currently Amended) Koutsaftis teaches a processor for wireless communication method performed by a network equipment (NE), comprising: receiving, in response to a detected transmission failure on a first radio access technology interface, a transport block ("TB") from a first device, the TB intended for a second device communicatively connected to the NE and the first device in a ring topology (para 0039],[0114] fig. 1 (b) 3, 4, wireless networking equipment UE receiving in response to the detected measurement report and failure first radio access technology interface such as LTE, the message is intended for second target base station because of handover connected to the NE and the first device in a ring topology ); determining an identifier for the second device based on the TB (para 0039], fig. 1 (b) 3, 4, based on the handover information determining an identifier for the second device based on the TB fro transmitting ); and transmitting, the TB to the identified second device over a new radio ("NR") Uu interface for forwarding toward the second device (para 0039],[0114] fig. 1 (b) 3, 4, transmitting, the TB to the identified second device over a new radio ("NR") Uu interface for forwarding toward the second device).
Kim teaches transmitting, without regenerating the TB, the TB to the identified second device over for forwarding toward the second device (para 0505, transmitting the data without regenerating over second communication link ) 20220232659
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 15.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US Publication Koutsaftis, Kim in view of FUJISHIRO.
As per claim 17, (Currently Amended) Koutsaftis teaches the processor of claim 16, FUJISHIRO teaches wherein the first radio access technology interface is a new radio ("NR") sidelink ("SL") PC5 interface and the second radio access technology interface is a NR Uu interface(para 0088-0090], fig. 11, first radio access technology is PC5 and second radio access technology is NR Uu interface). .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of Koutsaftis by wherein the first radio access technology interface is a new radio ("NR") sidelink ("SL") PC5 interface and the second radio access technology interface is a NR Uu interface as suggested by FUJISHIRO, this modification would benefit Koutsaftis for enabling a efficient handover process in a mobile communication network having speed connectivity.
As per claim 18, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO teaches the processor of claim 16, FUJISHIRO teaches wherein the first device is a user equipment ("UE") that is communicatively connected to the processor and the second device is a base unit that is communicatively connected to the processor and one or more additional processors (para 0088-0090], fig. 11, wherein the first device is a second user equipment ("UE") that is communicatively connected to the UE and the second device is a base unit that is communicatively connected to the UE and one or more additional UEs).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 17.
As per claim 19, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO teaches the processor of claim 16, FUJISHIRO teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to transmit the TB to the second device using a medium access control ("MAC") control element ("CE"), the MAC CE comprising an identifier for the first device that is the intended recipient of the TB (para 0064], UE to transmit the TB to the second device using a medium access control ("MAC") control element ("CE"), the MAC CE comprising an identifier for the first device that is an intended recipient of the TB).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 17.
As per claim 20, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO teaches the processor of claim 16, wherein the MAC CE comprises a field indicating to the second device to forward the TB to the first device as indicated by the identifier for the first device(para 0088-0090], fig. 11, device 200-2 transfer the block information from remote to the first device).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 17.
5. Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJISHIRO, Kim further view of US PG Pub US 20210400713 A1 to HE et al (hereinafter HE).
As per claim 7, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, Kim teaches the UE of claim 6, HE teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to trigger the SR in response to determining that the UE does not have valid SL resources available for transmitting the MAC CE to the second device ((para 0081],based on BSR report sending a report UE to trigger the SR in response to determining that the UE does not have valid SL resources available for transmitting the MAC CE to the second device). 20210400713
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of FUJISHIRO by UE to trigger the SR in response to determining that the UE does not have valid SL resources available for transmitting the MAC CE to the second device as suggested by HE, this modification would benefit FUJISHIRO for improving spectral efficiency, lowering costs, improving services in a mobile communication network.
As per claim 8, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, Kim teaches the UE of claim 1, HE teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit, on resources allocated by the second device, an indication to the second device that the transmission of the TB to the first device over the first communication link failed ((para 0088-0090], fig. 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit, on resources allocated by the second device, an indication to the second device that the transmission of the TB to the first device over the first communication link failed).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 7.
As per claim 9, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, Kim teaches the UE of claim 8, HE teaches wherein the indication that the transmission of the TB to the first device failed comprises a medium access control ("MAC") control element ("CE"), the MAC CE linked to at least one scheduling request ("SR") configuration (((para 0081], wherein the indication that the transmission of the TB to the first device failed comprises a medium access control ("MAC") control element ("CE"), the MAC CE linked to at least one scheduling request ("SR") configuration).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 7.
5. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJISHIRO, Kim further view of US PG Pub US 20200310373 A1 to Ganesan et al (hereinafter Ganesan).
As per claim 13, (Currently Amended) FUJISHIRO, Kim teaches the UE of claim 1, Ganesan teaches wherein the TB comprises an EtherCAT frame (para 0071] , wherein the TB comprises an EtherCAT frame ). 20200310373
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of FUJISHIRO by wherein the TB comprises an EtherCAT frame as suggested by Ganesan, this modification would benefit FUJISHIRO for enabling an efficient data transfer mechanism in a mobile communication network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20220007447 A1; US Patent Publication US 20220174774 A1, US Patent Publication US 20210211947 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented inthis Office 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 date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented inthis Office 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights