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 .
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 1-2, 3-20, 43-46, 21-23, 26, 27-28, 35-42 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.
Regarding claims 1-2, claim 1 recites ‘…at least one user equipments…’ This limitation is unclear. Is there one user equipment or more than one user equipment? Equipments should not be plural. Claim 2 is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 1-2, claim 1 recites ‘…where in the destination are selected…’ Is there more than one destination? Claims 2 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 1-2, claim 1 recites ‘…from at least one destination devices and the at least one relay devices…’ Are there multiple destination devices or just one? Are there multiple relay devices or one? Claims 2 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 1-2, claim 1 recites ‘…wherein the connection comprises at least one sidelinks…’ Are there multiple sidelinks or one or more? Claims 2 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 1-2, claim 1 recites ‘…wherein the processor circuit is arranged to support a connection between at least one sources…’ Are there more than one source or one or more sources?
Regarding claims 1-2, claim 1 recites ‘…wherein the destination are selected from at least one destination devices and the at least one relay devices…’ and ‘…wherein the first relaying scheme establishes a first QoS flow between the apparatus and the destination, wherein the second relaying scheme establishes a second QoS flow between the apparatus the at least one relay devices…’ These limitations are unclear. That is, the first QoS flow could be to a relay and the second QoS flow is to a relay. Further, it is unclear if the claimed apparatus is the relay or the source. Examiner is unable to find in the jumbo specification a multihop relay scenario. It appears that Applicant is attempting to claim a relaying node with QoS flow parameters between a remote UE (source) and the apparatus (relay) which establishes a second QoS flow between the apparatus (relay) to the network (destination). This is interpretation is consistent with claim 2 in which the apparatus (relay) bundles QoS flows from the remote UE (source) and the apparatus (relay) into a bundled QoS which is transmitted to the network (destination). Claim 2 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 3-20 and 43-46, claim 3 recites ‘at least one relay devices’ This limitation is unclear is there one relay device or multiple relay devices. Claims 4-20, 43-46 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 3 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites ‘e.g.’ It is unclear if this is a limitation or not. E.G. means ‘for example’ and it is unclear if this is a limitation or optional. Further the list fails to have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the penultimate limitation in the list. Therefore it is unclear if there is something missing from the claim.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites ‘…wherein the is a user device…’ This is grammatically incorrect and unclear. The what?
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites ‘…receive values of the QoS parameter…’ What QoS parameter? There are QoS parameters. Does each QoS parameter have multiple values? Or is each value a QoS parameter?
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites ‘…any one of claim 3…’ The dependency of claim 8 is unclear.
Regarding claims 9-14, claim 9 recites ‘…wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to connect to a first relay device and to a second relay device…’ This is unclear. What does ‘…circuit is arranged is to…’ mean?
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites ‘wherein the processor circuit is arranged is a user device…’ It is unclear what this means.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites ‘…wherein the apparatus is connected via the first relay device and the second relay devices to a destination Radio Access Network, wherein the Radio Access Network supports a hybrid QoS, wherein the Radio Access Network is be connected to an application server…’ This limitation is unclear. That is Applicant claims a destination RAN and then recites the RAN. Is this the destination RAN or some other RAN? Second, it is unclear what ‘is be connected’ means?
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites ‘…a first destination Radio Access Network, wherein the Radio Access Network…a second destination Radio Access Network…’ ‘…second the Radio Access Network communicate…’ These limitations are unclear. Is the first destination RAN, the RAN or something else? Also, it is not clear what ‘second the Radio Access Network communicate’ is referring to?
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites ‘…selected from the group consisting of a 5G QoS Identifier, identifying at least one QoS characteristics an Allocation and Retention Priority, a Reflective QoS Attribute…’ This limitation is unclear because there is a missing ‘and’.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites ‘…selected from the group consisting of a PC5 5G QoS Identifier, at least one PC5 Flow Bit Rates, at least one PC5 Link Aggregated Bit Rates, a required communication range, an aggregated delay, an aggregated jitter, …’ This limitation is unclear because there is a missing ‘and’.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites ‘…selected from the group consisting of a resource type, a priority level, a packet delay budget, a packet error rate, a default maximum data burst volume, a default averaging window…’ This limitation is unclear because there is a missing ‘and’.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites ‘wherein the at least one QoS characteristics are…’ This is grammatically incorrect and unclear.
Regarding claims 17-19, 43-46, claim 17 recites ‘…wherein the data packet is related using at least one of the QoS parameters…’ It is unclear what the data packet is related to. Claims 18-19 and 43-46 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 17 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing from the list.
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing from the list.
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing from the list.
Regarding claim 45, claim 45 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Further, claim 45 ends with a comma. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing.
Regarding claim 46, claim 46 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing.
Regarding claim 46, claim 46 recites ‘…wherein the QOS parameters may take are divided into a first set of values…’ It is unclear what ‘may take are’ means. May makes the limitation optional but the words make no sense when combined together.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing.
Regarding claims 21-23, and 26, claim 21 recites ‘…wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to receive…’ This limitation is unclear and grammatically incorrect. Claims 22-23, and 26 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 21 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 21-23, and 26, claim 21 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing. Claims 22-23, and 26 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 21 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 21-23, and 26, claim 21 recites ‘…from a destination via at least one relay devices…’ Devices should be singular. Therefore, it is unclear. Claims 22-23, and 26 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 21 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 21-23, and 26, claim 21 recites ‘…a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit, wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to receive a data packet from a destination via at least one relay devices using a first relaying scheme or using a second relaying scheme…’ These limitations are unclear. It is unclear what device is being claimed here. The remote UE does not receive from a destination and then map the packet to two different hybrid QoS between the apparatus and destination. Rather, when the UE sends a packet it maps it to one of two different relaying schemes using the hybrid QoS between the apparatus and destination. The specification does not mention what Applicant is claiming here. Therefore it is unclear based upon the claim language what Applicant is attempting to claim. Claims 22-26 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites that a user device is ‘…a building…’ This is unclear. The device described in the specification is not a building. It could be attached to a building but it is not by definition a building.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing.
Regarding claims 27-28, claim 27 recites ‘An comprising…’ An what? Claim 28 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 27 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 27-28, claim 27 recites ‘…sidelinks, \...’ It is unclear what the significance of the slash (\) is in the claim. Claim 28 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 27 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 27-28, claim 27 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing. Claim 28 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 27 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 27-28, claim 27 recites ‘…at least one sidelinks…’. Is there one sidelink or more than one sidelinks. That is, sidelinks should be sidelink. Claim 28 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 27 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 27-28, claim 27 recites ‘…at least one sources…’. Is there one source or more than one sources. That is, sources should be source. Claim 28 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 27 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 27-28, claim 27 recites ‘…wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to act…’ This is grammatically incorrect and unclear. Claim 28 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 27 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 27-28, claim 27 recites ‘…wherein the processor circuit is arranged is connected to the at least one of sources…’ What does at least one of sources mean? Claim 28 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 27 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites ‘at least one relay devices’ This limitation is unclear is there one relay device or multiple relay devices.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites ‘…from a destination via at least one relay devices…’ Devices should be singular. Therefore, it is unclear.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites ‘…receiving a data packet from a destination via at least one relay devices using a first relaying scheme or using a second relaying scheme…’ These limitations are unclear. It is unclear what device is being claimed here. The remote UE does not receive from a destination and then map the packet to two different hybrid QoS between the apparatus and destination. Rather, when the UE sends a packet it maps it to one of two different relaying schemes using the hybrid QoS between the apparatus and destination. The specification does not mention what Applicant is claiming here. Therefore it is unclear based upon the claim language what Applicant is attempting to claim.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites ‘…at least one sidelinks…’ Are there multiple sidelinks or one or more?
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites ‘…at least one sources…’ Are there more than one source or one or more sources?
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites a list but does not have an ‘and’ or ‘or’ before the last item in the list. Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites ‘the apparatus’. What apparatus? Therefore, it is unclear if there is something missing.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites ‘…at least one sidelinks…’. Is there one sidelink or more than one sidelinks. That is, sidelinks should be sidelink.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites ‘…at least one sources…’. Is there one source or more than one sources. That is, sources should be source.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 refers to claim 35. Please see all 112 rejections related to claim 35.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 refers to claim 36. Please see all 112 rejections related to claim 36.
Regarding claim 41, claim 41 refers to claim 37. Please see all 112 rejections related to claim 37.
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 refers to claim 38. Please see all 112 rejections related to claim 38.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050).
Regarding claim 1, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses an apparatus comprising: (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE-Network Relay)
arranged to support a connection between at least one sources and a destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination))
wherein the connection comprises at least one sidelinks, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink))
wherein the at one sources is selected from the group consisting of at least one user equipments and at least one relay devices, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination))
wherein the destination are selected from at least one destination devices and the at least one relay devices, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination); see also para. 35, fig. 6.6.1-1 NG RAN)
arranged to map a data packet, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 38, mapping IP packet to flow)
wherein the data packet is relayed to a hybrid Quality of Service flow between the at least one sources and the destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination)
wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for a first relaying scheme and for a second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters (e.g. a second relaying scheme) and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. a first relaying scheme) between the source and destination)
wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters associated with a QoS flow for a Uu communication and QoS parameters associated with a QoS flow of a sidelink communication, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters (e.g. a second relaying scheme which are associated with sidelink) and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. a first relaying scheme) between the source and destination; see also pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; PC5 is between UE and Relay (e.g. sidelink) and Uu is between relay and network); see also pg. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink))
wherein the first relaying scheme establishes a first QoS flow between the apparatus and the destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; UE relay to NG-RAN establishes QoS from relay (e.g. apparatus) to NG-RAN (e.g. destination))
wherein the second relaying scheme establishes a second QoS flow between the apparatus the at least one relay devices. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; Remote UE (e.g. the device being relayed (e.g. relay device)) establishes a QoS between UEtoNW relay (e.g. apparatus) using PC5 QoS)
3GPP TR 23.752 does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus has a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit. However, Rao does disclose a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit. (See Rao para. 234) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 to include the teaching of a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit of Rao with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. a UE has at a minimum a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transceiver) and further to allow for quick updates and further to allow for better security and future features and bug fixes by updating software instead of having to replace the device which is much more expensive and wasteful.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Teyeb (2022/0272774).
Regarding claim 2, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao disclose the apparatus of claim 1. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination. However, Teyeb does disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination. (See Teyeb fig. 10, para. 160; mapping multiple flows into one flow based upon QoS of the flows) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of wherein the processor circuit is arranged to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination of Teyeb with the motivation to utilize limited resources efficiently by combining like flows and further to reduce setup time by using channels that are available to meet requirements and further to maximize limited resources and further to reduce delay and jitter.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050).
Regarding claim 3, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses an apparatus comprising:
arranged is to transmit a data packet to a destination via at least one relay devices using a first relaying scheme, or using a second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); fig. 5.5.2-1; data traffic sent and received (e.g. transmit);pg. 38; transmit and receive using IP packets (e.g. data packets); fig. 5.3.1-3; network devices include gNB or nb-eNB (e.g. destination), see also fig. 6.11.2-1 UE2 (e.g. destination) ; see also fig. 6.6.1-2 protocol stack for transmitting and receiving)
arranged to map the data packet to a hybrid Quality of Service flow between the apparatus and the destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 38; packets are mapped to QoS for connection type PC5/Uu)
wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for the first relaying scheme and for the second relaying scheme. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone)
3GPP TR 23.752 does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus has a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit. However, Rao does disclose a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit. (See Rao para. 234) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 to include the teaching of a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit of Rao with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. a UE has at a minimum a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transceiver) and further to allow for quick updates and further to allow for better security and future features and bug fixes by updating software instead of having to replace the device which is much more expensive and wasteful.
Regarding claim 4, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 3,
wherein the first relaying scheme is arranged to establish a first QoS flow between the apparatus and the destination,
wherein the second relaying scheme is arranged to establish a second QoS flow between the apparatus and the at least one relay device. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone)
Regarding claim 5, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 3,
wherein, the processor circuit is arranged is to map the hybrid QoS flow to a first radio bearer for a link to the destination if the data packet is relayed using the first relaying scheme,
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to map the hybrid QoS flow to a second radio bearer for a link to the at least one relay devices if the data packet is relayed using the second relaying scheme. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone; pg. 41; PC5 and Uu radio bearers)
Regarding claim 6, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of any one of claim 3,
wherein the processor circuit is arranged is a user device,
wherein the user device is configured with the hybrid QoS flow from the group consisting of a broadcast signaling, a groupcast signaling, e.g., a unicast signaling apparatus-specific signaling. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 36, pg. 46; unicast link; pg. 53; QoS requirements for PC5 (unicast link); pg. 75, broadcast, groupcast, unicast parameters)
Regarding claim 9, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of any one of claim 3,
wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to connect to a first relay device and to a second relay device,
wherein the first relay device is operating in accordance with the first relaying scheme,
wherein the second relay device is operating in accordance with the second relaying scheme. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) connects via paths 2 or 3 (e.g. relay links))
Regarding claim 11, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the apparatus is a user device,
wherein the apparatus is connected via the first relay device and the second relay devices to a destination Radio Access Network,
wherein the Radio Access Network supports a hybrid QoS,
wherein the Radio Access Network is be connected to an application server. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) connects via paths 2 or 3 (e.g. relay links); figure 5.3.1-2, 5.3.1-3; UE to Network Relaying served by gNB is one path and/or UE to Network Relaying served by ng-eNB; figure 6.1.2.2-1, section 6.1.2.1 AF (e.g. ProSe Application server))
Regarding claim 15, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to map the hybrid QoS flow to the first radio bearer or to the second radio bearer for a link to the at least one relay devices. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone; pg. 41; PC5 and Uu radio bearers)
Regarding claim 16, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 3,
wherein the QoS parameters for the Uu communication is selected from the group consisting of a 5G QoS Identifier, identifying at least one QoS characteristics an Allocation and Retention Priority, a Reflective QoS Attribute,
wherein the 5G QOS Identifier identifies at least one QoS characteristics, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; UU QoS (5QI) (e.g. 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic)
wherein the QoS parameters for the sidelink communication are selected from the group consisting of a PC5 5G QoS Identifier, at least one PC5 Flow Bit Rates, at least one PC5 Link Aggregated Bit Rates, a required communication range, an aggregated delay, an aggregated jitter, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; PC5 QoS (PQI) (e.g. PC5 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic)
wherein the at least one QoS characteristics are selected from the group consisting of a resource type, a priority level, a packet delay budget, a packet error rate, a default maximum data burst volume, a default averaging window. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; UU QoS (5QI) (e.g. 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic; characteristics include GFBR, guaranteed flow bit rate, and MFBR, Maximum Flow Bit Rate (e.g. a resource type being one that supports the GFBR and/or MFBR))
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Lee (2022/0225156).
Regarding claim 7, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of any one of claim 3,
wherein the is a user device, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus))
3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive values of the QoS parameter from a core network via a Non Access Stratum signaling. However, Lee does disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive values of the QoS parameter from a core network via a Non Access Stratum signaling. (See Lee para. 313; QoS parameters received via NAS message) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive values of the QoS parameter from a core network via a Non Access Stratum signaling of Lee with the motivation being to ensure the correct QoS parameters are used and further to comply with the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money and provides compatibility and further to meet end user goals.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Sivavakeesar (2013/0064173).
Regarding claim 8, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of any one of claim 3. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to perform a handover from a current relay device to a new relay device supporting a current relaying scheme or a hybrid QoS on a link between the apparatus and the at least one relay devices, based on a certain event or when the current relay device does not support a current relaying scheme. However, Sivavakeesar does disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to perform a handover from a current relay device to a new relay device supporting a current relaying scheme or a hybrid QoS on a link between the apparatus and the at least one relay devices, based on a certain event or when the current relay device does not support a current relaying scheme. (See Sivavakeesar para. 64; handover from one relay to another relay because current cell cannot meet QoS requirement) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to perform a handover from a current relay device to a new relay device supporting a current relaying scheme or a hybrid QoS on a link between the apparatus and the at least one relay devices, based on a certain event or when the current relay device does not support a current relaying scheme of Sivavakeesar with the motivation being to better support the QoS as demanded by the traffic of the UE (See Sivavakeesar para. 64) and further to meet end user goals.
Claims 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Freda (2023/0180313.
Regarding claim 10, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the processor circuit is arranged is a user device,
wherein the apparatus is connected to a first destination via the first relay device,
wherein the first destination device supports the first relaying scheme,
wherein the apparatus is connected to a second destination via the second relay device,
wherein the second destination device supports the second relaying scheme. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) connects via paths 2 or 3 (e.g. relay links); figure 5.3.1-2, 5.3.1-3; UE to Network Relaying served by gNB is one path and/or UE to Network Relaying served by ng-eNB)
3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao do not explicitly disclose wherein the destinations could be a user device. However, Freda does disclose wherein the destinations could be a user device. (See Freda fig. 1E; Destination WTRU) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of wherein the destinations could be a user device of Freda with the motivation being to allow for flexibility in network operation and further to reduce latency and further to reduce network traffic and further to extend connections beyond what traditional base stations can reach.
Regarding claim 13, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 3. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to connect to the destination directly and via the at least one relay devices. However, Freda does disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to connect to the destination directly and via the at least one relay devices. (See Freda fig. 1E; Destination WTRU) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to connect to the destination directly and via the at least one relay devices of Freda with the motivation being to allow for flexibility in network operation and further to reduce latency and further to reduce network traffic and further to extend connections beyond what traditional base stations can reach.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Dong (2022/0167442).
Regarding claim 12, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the apparatus is a user device,
wherein the apparatus is connected via the first relay device to a first destination Radio Access Network,
wherein the Radio Access Network supports the first relaying scheme or a hybrid QoS flow,
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to transmit a data packet according to a second relaying scheme or a hybrid QoS flow via the first relay device to a second destination Radio Access Network according to a second relay device supporting the second relaying scheme or a hybrid QoS flow, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) connects via paths 2 or 3 (e.g. relay links); figure 5.3.1-2, 5.3.1-3; UE to Network Relaying served by gNB is one path and/or UE to Network Relaying served by ng-eNB (e.g. RAN 1 and/or RAN2)
3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao do not explicitly disclose wherein the first Radio Access Network and second the Radio Access Network communicate over a backhaul. However, Dong does disclose wherein the first Radio Access Network and second the Radio Access Network communicate over a backhaul. (See Dong para. 17, fig. 1; multiple RANs connected by a backhaul) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of wherein the first Radio Access Network and second the Radio Access Network communicate over a backhaul of Dong with the motivation being for higher speeds and capacity and further lower latency and further improved reliability and further greater scalability.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Dong (2022/0167442) and further in view of Park (2018/0124656).
Regarding claim 14, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao in view of Dong discloses the apparatus of claim 12. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao in view of Dong do not explicitly disclose wherein processor circuit is arranged to resume the flow over a link not affected by a link failure. However, Park does disclose wherein processor circuit is arranged to resume the flow over a link not affected by a link failure. (See Park para. 150) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao in view of Dong to include the teaching of wherein processor circuit is arranged to resume the flow over a link not affected by a link failure of Park with the motivation being to maintain connectivity in tough wireless conditions and further to reduce delay.
Claims 17, 18, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050).
Regarding claim 17, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the data packet is identified as a data packet is to be relayed to the destination using the first relaying scheme or using the second relaying scheme within the hybrid QoS flow,
wherein the data packet is related using at least one of the QoS parameters. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone)
Regarding claim 18, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 17,
wherein at least one first values of the QoS parameter indicate that the data packet is relayed to the destination using the first relaying scheme,
wherein at least one second values of the QoS parameter indicate that the data packet is relayed to the destination using the second relaying scheme. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone; one relaying scheme is directly; another relaying scheme is indirect; direct uses UU alone; indirect uses PC5 to relaying UE) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; PC5 QoS (PQI) (e.g. PC5 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; UU QoS (5QI) (e.g. 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic)
Regarding claim 43, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 17,
wherein a portion of the QoS parameters indicates the data packet to be relayed to the destination using the first relaying scheme,
wherein the values that are not in the portion of the QoS parameters indicates the data packet to be relayed to the destination using the second relaying scheme. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone; one relaying scheme is directly; another relaying scheme is indirect; direct uses UU alone; indirect uses PC5 to relaying UE) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; PC5 QoS (PQI) (e.g. PC5 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; UU QoS (5QI) (e.g. 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic)
Regarding claim 45, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 17,
wherein the QOS parameters have a first set of values and a second set of values, wherein a third set of values, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone; one relaying scheme is directly; another relaying scheme is indirect; direct uses UU alone; indirect uses PC5 to relaying UE) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; PC5 QoS (PQI) (e.g. PC5 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; UU QoS (5QI) (e.g. 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic; first set is for PC5, second set is for Uu, third set is both PC5 and Uu QoS parameters)
wherein the values excluding the third set of values indicate the data packet to be relayed to the destination using either the first relaying scheme or the second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone; one relaying scheme is directly; another relaying scheme is indirect; direct uses UU alone; indirect uses PC5 to relaying UE) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; PC5 QoS (PQI) (e.g. PC5 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 6.24.1, fig. 6.24.1-1; UU QoS (5QI) (e.g. 5G QoS Identifier) which identifies a QoS characteristic; third set is excluded as a whole but individual values may be used for either Uu or PC5)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Lee (2022/0225156).
Regarding claim 19, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 18. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive values of the QoS parameter from a core network via a Non Access Stratum signaling. However, Lee does disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive values of the QoS parameter from a core network via a Non Access Stratum signaling. (See Lee para. 313; QoS parameters received via NAS message) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive values of the QoS parameter from a core network via a Non Access Stratum signaling of Lee with the motivation being to ensure the correct QoS parameters are used and further to comply with the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money and provides compatibility and further to meet end user goals.
Claims 44 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Elazzouni (2022/0377823).
Regarding claim 44, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 17. 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses QoS parameters having values. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao does not explicitly disclose wherein the relaying scheme is selected based upon the values of the QoS. However, Elazzouni does disclose wherein the relaying scheme is selected based upon the values of the QoS. (See Elazzouni para. 50, fig. 7; direct path or indirect path selected based upon QoS conditions; see also para. 109, 110, 240; para. 118; UE establishes two paths; para. 122; fulfilling QoS requirements) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of wherein the relaying scheme is selected based upon the values of the QoS of Elazzouni with the motivation being to meet end user delay, latency, power, throughput goals and further to provide more reliability in a difficult wireless environments and further to improve network performance and more efficiently utilize limited wireless resources by attempting to utilize the link that best meets requirements (thusly reducing retransmissions which are wasteful of wireless resources).
Regarding claim 46, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 17. 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses QoS parameters having values. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao does not explicitly disclose using both the first relaying and second relaying scheme at the same time. However, Elazzouni does disclose using both the first relaying and second relaying scheme at the same time. (See Elazzouni fig. 7; direct path, indirect path, or direct path and indirect path together; see also para. 119, 122, 132) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of using both the first relaying and second relaying scheme at the same time of Elazzouni with the motivation being to meet end user delay, latency, power, throughput goals and further to provide more reliability in a difficult wireless environments and further to improve network performance by utilizing both links if necessary to meet goals.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Feng (2019/0028177) and further in view of Wijting (2014/0247802).
Regarding claim 20, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 3. 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses multiple relaying schemes. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao does not explicitly disclose using an LCID to identify a relaying scheme. However, Feng does disclose using an LCID to identify a relaying scheme. (See Feng para. 12; LCID to identify a specific relay scheme) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of using an LCID to identify a relaying scheme of Feng with the motivation being to allow for easy identification for QoS and routing purposes and further to reduce processing delays and further to ensure meeting of QoS requirements and further to decrease resource usage (battery processor, etc.)
3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao in view of Feng do not explicitly disclose to identify a logical channel for the scheme in the MAC header. However, Wijting does disclose identify a logical channel for the scheme in the MAC header. (See Wijting para. 74) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao in view of Feng to include the teaching of identify a logical channel for the scheme in the MAC header of Wijting with the motivation being to allow for easy identification for QoS and routing purposes and further to reduce processing delays and further to ensure meeting of QoS requirements and further to decrease resource usage (battery processor, etc.) and further to separate out other processes and channels with unique uses and requirements.
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.
Claims 21, 22, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050).
Regarding claim 21, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses an apparatus comprising:
to receive a data packet from a destination via at least one relay devices using a first relaying scheme or using a second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); fig. 5.5.2-1; data traffic sent and received (e.g. transmit);pg. 38; transmit and receive using IP packets (e.g. data packets); fig. 5.3.1-3; network devices include gNB or nb-eNB (e.g. destination), see also fig. 6.11.2-1 UE2 (e.g. destination) ; see also fig. 6.6.1-2 protocol stack for transmitting and receiving; see also 112)
to map the received data packet to a hybrid Quality of Service flow between the apparatus and the destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 38; packets are mapped to QoS for connection type PC5/Uu)
wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for the first relaying scheme and for the second relaying scheme,
wherein the first relaying scheme establishes a first QoS flow between the apparatus and the destination,
wherein the second relaying scheme establishes a second QoS flow between the apparatus and the at least one relay devices. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone)
3GPP TR 23.752 does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus has a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit. However, Rao does disclose a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit. (See Rao para. 234) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 to include the teaching of a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit of Rao with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. a UE has at a minimum a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transceiver) and further to allow for quick updates and further to allow for better security and future features and bug fixes by updating software instead of having to replace the device which is much more expensive and wasteful.
Regarding claim 22, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 21,
wherein the apparatus is a user device,
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to connect to the at least one relay devices over the sidelink,
wherein the destination comprises a second user device UE or an entity of a core network or a radio access network. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); fig. 5.5.2-1; data traffic sent and received (e.g. transmit);pg. 38; transmit and receive using IP packets (e.g. data packets); fig. 5.3.1-3; network devices include gNB or nb-eNB (e.g. destination), see also fig. 6.11.2-1 UE2 (e.g. destination) ; see also fig. 6.6.1-2 protocol stack for transmitting and receiving; see also 112)
Regarding claim 23, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the user device is selected from the group consisting of a mobile terminal, a stationary terminal, a cellular IoT-UE, a vehicular UE, a leader, an IoT, narrowband IoT, device, wearable device, like a smartwatch, a fitness tracker, smart glasses, a ground based vehicle, an aerial vehicle, a drone, a moving base station, road side unit, RSU, a building, any other item device provided with network connectivity enabling the item/device to communicate using the wireless communication network, any other item or device provided with network connectivity enabling the item/device to communicate using a sidelink the wireless communication network. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. mobile/stationary terminal) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); fig. 5.5.2-1; data traffic sent and received (e.g. transmit);pg. 38; transmit and receive using IP packets (e.g. data packets); fig. 5.3.1-3; network devices include gNB or nb-eNB (e.g. destination), see also fig. 6.11.2-1 UE2 (e.g. destination) ; see also fig. 6.6.1-2 protocol stack for transmitting and receiving; see also 112)
Regarding claim 26, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the processor circuit is arranged is to connect via a sidelink to at least one of a source, the destination, at least one second relay devices. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. mobile/stationary terminal) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); fig. 5.5.2-1; data traffic sent and received (e.g. transmit);pg. 38; transmit and receive using IP packets (e.g. data packets); fig. 5.3.1-3; network devices include gNB or nb-eNB (e.g. destination), see also fig. 6.11.2-1 UE2 (e.g. destination) ; see also fig. 6.6.1-2 protocol stack for transmitting and receiving; see also 112)
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.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050) and further in view of Teyeb (2022/0272774).
Regarding claim 27, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses an comprising: (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE-Network Relay)
to act as a relaying entity so as to provide functionality to support connectivity between at least one sources and a destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination))
wherein a connection between the source and the destination comprises at least one sidelinks, \ (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink))
connect via a sidelink to at least one of the at least one sources, the destination, at least one second relay devices, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 17, figures 5.3.1-2,3; Remote UE connected to relay using NR PC5 (e.g. sidelink))
connected to the at least one of sources, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination))
3GPP TR 23.752 does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus has a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit. However, Rao does disclose a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit. (See Rao para. 234) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 to include the teaching of a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit of Rao with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. a UE has at a minimum a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transceiver) and further to allow for quick updates and further to allow for better security and future features and bug fixes by updating software instead of having to replace the device which is much more expensive and wasteful.
3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao do not explicitly disclose to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination. However, Teyeb does disclose to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination. (See Teyeb fig. 10, para. 160; mapping multiple flows into one flow based upon QoS of the flows) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination of Teyeb with the motivation to utilize limited resources efficiently by combining like flows and further to reduce setup time by using channels that are available to meet requirements and further to maximize limited resources and further to reduce delay and jitter.
Regarding claim 28, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao in view of Teyeb discloses the apparatus of claim 27,
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to bundle first QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into a first common QoS flow between the apparatus and the destination,
wherein first QoS flows are associated with a QoS parameter,
wherein second QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into a second common QoS flow between the apparatus and the destination,
wherein the second QoS flows are associated with the QoS parameter. (See Teyeb fig. 10, para. 160; mapping multiple flows into one flow based upon QoS of the flows based upon QoS profile (e.g. a parameter)) The motivation to utilize limited resources efficiently by combining like flows and further to reduce setup time by using channels that are available to meet requirements and further to maximize limited resources and further to reduce delay and jitter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021).
Regarding claim 35, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses a method comprising:
transmitting a data packet to a destination via at least one relay devices using a first relaying scheme, or using a second relaying scheme; and(See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); fig. 5.5.2-1; data traffic sent and received (e.g. transmit);pg. 38; transmit and receive using IP packets (e.g. data packets); fig. 5.3.1-3; network devices include gNB or nb-eNB (e.g. destination), see also fig. 6.11.2-1 UE2 (e.g. destination) ; see also fig. 6.6.1-2 protocol stack for transmitting and receiving)
mapping the data packet to a hybrid Quality of Service, flow between the apparatus and the destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 38; packets are mapped to QoS for connection type PC5/Uu)
wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for the first relaying scheme and for the second relaying scheme. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021).
Regarding claim 36, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses a method comprising:
receiving a data packet from a destination via at least one relay devices using a first relaying scheme, or using a second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 section 5.3, figure 5.3.1-1 – UE (e.g. apparatus) which can send data via Link 1 (direct), 2 (relay), or 3 (relay) (e.g. multiple relaying schemes); fig. 5.5.2-1; data traffic sent and received (e.g. transmit);pg. 38; transmit and receive using IP packets (e.g. data packets); fig. 5.3.1-3; network devices include gNB or nb-eNB (e.g. destination), see also fig. 6.11.2-1 UE2 (e.g. destination) ; see also fig. 6.6.1-2 protocol stack for transmitting and receiving)
mapping the received data packet to a hybrid Quality of Service, QoS, flow between the apparatus and the destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 38; packets are mapped to QoS for connection type PC5/Uu)
wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for the first relaying scheme and for the second relaying scheme,
wherein the first relaying scheme establishes a first QoS flow between the apparatus and the destination,
wherein the second relaying scheme establishes a second QoS flow between the apparatus and the at least one relay devices. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination; alternatively; direct connection in fig. 5.3.1-1 is Uu QoS alone)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021).
Regarding claim 37, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses a method comprising:
supporting connectivity between at least one sources and a destination, wherein a connection between the source and the destination comprises at least one sidelinks; (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE-Network Relay) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination)) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink))
connecting to at least one of the at least one sources, the destination, at least one second relay devices; and(See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination))
mapping a data packet to a hybrid Quality of Service flow between the source and the destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 38, mapping IP packet to flow)
wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for a first relaying scheme and for a second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. together a hybrid QoS flow) between the source and destination)
wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters associated with a QoS flow for a Uu communication and QoS parameters associated with a QoS flow of a sidelink communication, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters (e.g. a second relaying scheme) and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. a first relaying scheme) between the source and destination)
wherein the first relaying scheme establishes a first QoS flow between the apparatus and the destination,
wherein the second relaying scheme establishes a second QoS flow between the apparatus and the at least one relay devices. (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 95-96; section 6.25; UE-Network Relay splits E2E QoS to the PC5 QoS parameters (e.g. a second relaying scheme which are associated with sidelink) and the Uu QoS parameters (e.g. a first relaying scheme) between the source and destination; see also pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; PC5 is between UE and Relay (e.g. sidelink) and Uu is between relay and network); see also pg. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink)) (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; Remote UE (e.g. the device being relayed (e.g. relay device)) establishes a QoS between UEtoNW relay (e.g. apparatus) using PC5 QoS)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Teyeb (2022/0272774).
Regarding claim 38, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses a method comprising:
providing connectivity between at least one sources and a destination, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination))
wherein a connection between the source and the destination comprises at least one sidelinks; (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink))
connecting via a sidelink to at least one of the at least one sources, the destination, at least one second relay devices; and (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 17, figures 5.3.1-2,3; Remote UE connected to relay using NR PC5 (e.g. sidelink))
connecting to the at least one sources (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 16, figure 5.3.1-1; UE (e.g. source) connects to network (e.g. destination))
3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao do not explicitly disclose to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination. However, Teyeb does disclose to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination. (See Teyeb fig. 10, para. 160; mapping multiple flows into one flow based upon QoS of the flows) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao to include the teaching of to bundle QoS flows between the at least one sources and the apparatus into at least one bundled QoS flows between the apparatus and the destination of Teyeb with the motivation to utilize limited resources efficiently by combining like flows and further to reduce setup time by using channels that are available to meet requirements and further to maximize limited resources and further to reduce delay and jitter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050).
Regarding claim 39, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses the method as claimed in claim 35. 3GPP TR 23.752 does not explicitly disclose a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method. However, Rao does disclose a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method. (See Rao para. 234) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 to include the teaching of a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method of Rao with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. a UE has at a minimum a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transceiver) and further to allow for quick updates and further to allow for better security and future features and bug fixes by updating software instead of having to replace the device which is much more expensive and wasteful.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050).
Regarding claim 40, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses the method as claimed in claim 36. 3GPP TR 23.752 does not explicitly disclose a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method. However, Rao does disclose a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method. (See Rao para. 234) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 to include the teaching of a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method of Rao with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. a UE has at a minimum a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transceiver) and further to allow for quick updates and further to allow for better security and future features and bug fixes by updating software instead of having to replace the device which is much more expensive and wasteful.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Rao (2023/0189050).
Regarding claim 41, 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses the method as claimed in claim 37. 3GPP TR 23.752 does not explicitly disclose a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method. However, Rao does disclose a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method. (See Rao para. 234) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of 3GPP TR 23.752 to include the teaching of a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method of Rao with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. a UE has at a minimum a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transceiver) and further to allow for quick updates and further to allow for better security and future features and bug fixes by updating software instead of having to replace the device which is much more expensive and wasteful.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.752 (3GPP TR 23.752 v17.0.0 – “Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in 5G System (5GS)” March 2021), and further in view of Teyeb (2022/0272774).
Regarding claim 42, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Teyeb discloses a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method as claimed in claim 38. (See Claim 38; Teyeb para. 226; CRM) The motivation being it is common sense (e.g. a UE has at a minimum a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transceiver) and further to allow for quick updates and further to allow for better security and future features and bug fixes by updating software instead of having to replace the device which is much more expensive and wasteful.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461