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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-23, 26-28, 35-42, Applicant argues ‘The claims are amended to correct each of these errors…’ Examiner disagrees. All of these errors have not been addressed and new errors have been introduced. Please see the 112 rejections below.
Regarding the rejections of claims 35-37, Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the prior art. Examiner disagrees. First, the claims are unclear as outlined below in the 112 rejections that follow. Second, the claim, as best understood in light of the 112 rejection, only requires that the devices along the path has QoS requirements. 3GPP TR 23.752 discloses a Remote UE (source/destination) using PC5 QoS; relay uses PC5 QoS and Uu QoS; and network (destination/source) uses Uu QoS and 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 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1, pg. 95-96; section 6.25; see also pg. 13) Therefore, the prior art does teach what is claimed and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11, 15-18, 21-23, 26, 39-41, 43, and 45; claim 2; claims 7, 19; claim 8; claims 10 and 13; claim 12; claim 14; claim 20; and claims 44 and 46. Applicant argues based upon the amendments and references the arguments that were addressed above. Please see arguments above and rejections below.
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, 21, 22, 23, 26, 43-36, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 41 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 ‘…wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for a first relaying scheme and for a second relaying scheme, wherein each of the at least one source, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with the hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and second relaying scheme… First, it is unclear if the hybrid QoS flow is QoS parameters or is setup/associated with/ characterized by QoS parameters. That is, is the flow a stream of packets that use particular QoS parameters or is the flow the parameters or something else? Second, claim 1 recites the source, the destination and the at least one relay are configured. However, claim 1, is about an apparatus. None of these are the apparatus so it is unclear how this limits an apparatus. Third, claim 1 recites that the source is a UE or a relay and the destination is a destination device or a relay. Therefore, it is unclear how the claim later recites ‘wherein each of the at least one source, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with the hybrid QoS flow’ because what is the relay device? The relay device is one of the source or the destination so this is unclear. Claim 2 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons. Please review all of your claims again.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites ‘…any one of claim 3…’ This is unclear. It is assumed this should read ‘of claim 3’. Please rereview your claims for accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites ‘the processor circuit is arranges a user device…’ This is grammatically incorrect and unclear. How does a processor circuit arrange a user device?
Regarding claims 3-20, 43-46, claim 3 recites ‘…wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for the first relaying scheme and for the second relaying scheme, wherein each of the apparatus, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme…’ It is unclear if the hybrid QoS flow is QoS parameters or is setup/associated with/ characterized by QoS parameters. That is, is the flow a stream of packets that use particular QoS parameters or is the flow the parameters or something else? Claims 4-20, 43-46 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 3 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, claim 12 recites ‘the first destination Radio Access Network…’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore the claim is unclear. Claim 14 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites ‘…wherein the at least one QoS characteristic…’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 23, and 26, claim 21 recites ‘…wherein each of the apparatus, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme…’ It is unclear if the hybrid QoS flow is QoS parameters or is setup/associated with/ characterized by QoS parameters. That is, is the flow a stream of packets that use particular QoS parameters or is the flow the parameters or something else? Further, there is lack of antecedent basis for ‘the hybrid QoS flow’. Therefore the claims are unclear. Claims 22, 23, and 26 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 21 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites ‘the apparatus’. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what exactly the apparatus is referring to.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites ‘a hybrid Quality of Service, flow…’ It is unclear what the significance of the comma is.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites ‘…wherein each of the apparatus, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme…’ It is unclear if the hybrid QoS flow is QoS parameters or is setup/associated with/ characterized by QoS parameters. That is, is the flow a stream of packets that use particular QoS parameters or is the flow the parameters or something else? The claims are unclear.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites ‘…wherein each of the apparatus, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme…’ It is unclear if the hybrid QoS flow is QoS parameters or is setup/associated with/ characterized by QoS parameters. That is, is the flow a stream of packets that use particular QoS parameters or is the flow the parameters or something else? The claims are unclear.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites ‘…wherein the hybrid QoS flow comprises QoS parameters for a first relaying scheme and for a second relaying scheme, wherein each of the at least one source, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with the hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and second relaying scheme…’ It is unclear if the hybrid QoS flow is QoS parameters or is setup/associated with/ characterized by QoS parameters. That is, is the flow a stream of packets that use particular QoS parameters or is the flow the parameters or something else? Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 refers to claim 35. See all claim 35 rejections above.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 refers to claim 36. See all claim 36 rejections above.
Regarding claim 41, claim 41 refers to claim 37. See all claim 37 rejections above.
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)
wherein each of the at least one source, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; Remote UE (source/destination) using PC5 QoS; relay uses PC5 QoS and Uu QoS; and network (destination/source) uses Uu QoS; 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. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink); See 112 rejection; this is an apparatus claim therefore, the fact that two/three other devices may have QoS parameters does not limit the apparatus; alternatively or additionally each device participates in the end-to-end arrangement)
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 source 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 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)
wherein each of the apparatus, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; Remote UE (source/destination) using PC5 QoS; relay uses PC5 QoS and Uu QoS; and network (destination/source) uses Uu QoS; 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. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink); See 112 rejection; this is an apparatus claim therefore, the fact that two/three other devices may have QoS parameters does not limit the apparatus; alternatively or additionally each device participates in the end-to-end arrangement)
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 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 device 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, a unicast signaling and an 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 claim 3,
wherein the processor circuit is arranged 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 first destination Radio Access Network,
wherein the first Radio Access Network supports a hybrid QoS,
wherein the first Radio Access Network is 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 device. (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, and, a Reflective QoS Attribute,
wherein the 5G QOS Identifier identifies at least one 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)
wherein the QoS parameters for the sidelink communication is selected from the group consisting of a PC5 5G QoS Identifier, at least one PC5 Flow Bit Rate, at least one PC5 Link Aggregated Bit Rates, a required communication range, an aggregated delay, and 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 is 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, and 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 claim 3,
wherein the apparatus 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 claim 3. 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged 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 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 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 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 to connect to the destination directly and via the at least one relay devices. However, Freda does disclose wherein the processor circuit is arranged 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 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 the first destination Radio Access Network,
wherein the first destination 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 destination Radio Access Network and second destination Radio Access Network communicate over a backhaul. However, Dong does disclose wherein the first destination Radio Access Network and second destination 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 destination Radio Access Network and second destination 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 that 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 relayed 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)
wherein each of the apparatus, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; Remote UE (source/destination) using PC5 QoS; relay uses PC5 QoS and Uu QoS; and network (destination/source) uses Uu QoS; 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. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink); See 112 rejection; this is an apparatus claim therefore, the fact that two/three other devices may have QoS parameters does not limit the apparatus; alternatively or additionally each device participates in the end-to-end arrangement)
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;)
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, any other item device provided with network connectivity enabling the item/device to communicate using the wireless communication network, and 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)
Regarding claim 26, 3GPP TR 23.752 in view of Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to connect via a sidelink to at least one of a source, the destination, and at least one second relay device. (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;)
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)
wherein each of the apparatus, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; Remote UE (source/destination) using PC5 QoS; relay uses PC5 QoS and Uu QoS; and network (destination/source) uses Uu QoS; 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. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink); alternatively or additionally each device participates in the end-to-end arrangement; see also 112)
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 at an apparatus 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, and
wherein the second relaying scheme establishes 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)
wherein each of the apparatus, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; Remote UE (source/destination) using PC5 QoS; relay uses PC5 QoS and Uu QoS; and network (destination/source) uses Uu QoS; 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. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink); alternatively or additionally each device participates in the end-to-end arrangement; see 112)
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)
wherein each of the at least one source, the destination, and the at least one relay device are configured with hybrid QoS flow comprising the QoS parameters for the first and the second relaying scheme, (See 3GPP TR 23.752 pg. 93, fig. 6.24.1-1; Remote UE (source/destination) using PC5 QoS; relay uses PC5 QoS and Uu QoS; and network (destination/source) uses Uu QoS; 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. 13; 5G ProSe Direct (e.g. sidelink); alternatively or additionally each device participates in the end-to-end arrangement; see 112 rejection)
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights