DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 1/8/2024.
Claims 1-4,7,8,10-13,15,16,18,21-25,27, and 37 are pending.
Claims 1-4,7,8,10-13,15,16,18,21-25,27, and 37 are rejected.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/2/2024, 12/31/2024, and 7/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,13,15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pub. 2018/0084481)(W1 hereafter) in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. 2017/0347338)(C1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, W1 teaches a terminal (i.e. UE)[paragraph 0048], the terminal being a first terminal [refer Fig. 6A], and comprising a memory, a transceiver, and a processor [paragraph 0048], the memory is configured to store a computer program [paragraph 0048];
the transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data (i.e. D2D communications) under the control of the processor [paragraph 0048]; and
the processor is configured to read the computer program in the memory and perform following step [paragraph 0048]:
performing activation and/or deactivation of a relay function of the first terminal [paragraph 0090] based on a first channel quality [paragraph 0103] or first indication information [paragraph 0108],
the first terminal is a terminal having the relay function [paragraph 0103], the first channel quality is a channel quality (i.e. signal quality) of a sidelink interface (i.e. Uu interface)[paragraph 0103], and the first indication information is transmitted to the first terminal by a network device or the relay terminal [paragraph 0108].
However, W1 doesn’t expressly disclose that the first channel quality is a channel quality of a sidelink interface between the first terminal and a relay terminal.
C1 discloses receiving relay related information sent by an adjacent relay node [paragraph 0735], and for relay selection, a threshold can be provided that includes a minimum device-to-device communication link quality threshold and/or a relay reselection threshold [paragraph 0738].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of W1 for a UE to determine a running state as a relay node based upon a measurement result [refer W1; Abstract] to incorporate the measuring of other links between the UE and other UEs or relays as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known procedure with regards to relay selection that would yield predictable results [refer C1; paragraph 0738].
Regarding claim 13, W1 teaches performing, by the first terminal, the activation and/or deactivation of the relay function based on the first indication information [paragraph 0090] comprises: in case that the first indication information indicates that the relay function is to be activated [paragraph 0106], determining, by the first terminal, that the activation of the relay function is allowed [paragraph 0100] and performing, by the first terminal, the activation of the relay function [paragraph 0106].
Regarding claim 15, W1 teaches the first indication information is carried by RRC signaling [paragraph 0103].
Claims 2-4,7,8,10-12,16,18,22-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W1 in view of C1, as applied to claims 1 and 21, in further view of Chang et al. (US Pub. 2023/0422141)(C2 hereafter).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, W1 teaches obtaining, by the first terminal, a first channel quality threshold (i.e. signal quality measurement value preconfigured threshold)[paragraph 0100]; and
performing, by the first terminal, a determination as to activation and/or deactivation of the relay function based on the first channel quality and the obtained first channel quality threshold [paragraph 0103].
However, W1 fails to disclose a second channel quality threshold, the second channel quality threshold being higher than the first channel quality threshold.
C2 discloses a UE managing multiple thresholds used for managing relay device reselection [paragraph 0014], quality information can indicate whether a quality is below a minimum quality threshold, above a preferred quality threshold or between two quality thresholds (i.e. one higher than the other)[paragraph 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of W1 for a UE to determine a running state as a relay node based upon a measurement result [refer W1; Abstract] to incorporate the multiple thresholds for relay selection as taught by C2. One would be motivated to do so to provide a candidate for relay that would meet preferred criteria’s [refer C2; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claims 3 and 23, W1 teaches obtaining, by the first terminal, the first channel quality threshold in a first manner [paragraph 0100], the first manner comprises at least one of: the first channel quality threshold is pre-configured [paragraph 0100] or the first channel quality threshold [paragraph 0100].
Regarding claims 4 and 24, W1 teaches in case that the first terminal performs the determination as to the activation and/or deactivation of the relay function based on the first channel quality [paragraph 0106] and the first channel quality threshold [paragraph 0100], the method further comprises: determining, by the first terminal, that the activation of the relay function is allowed (i.e. relay privilege is allowed)[paragraph 0100] in case that the first channel quality is greater than or equal to the first channel quality threshold [paragraph 0100].
Regarding claim 7, W1 teaches in case that the first terminal determines that the activation of the relay function (i.e. relay privilege) is allowed [paragraph 0100], activation of the relay function depends on implementation of the first terminal [paragraph 0106].
However, W1 fails to disclose a specific time of the activation of the relay function depends on implementation of the first terminal.
C1 discloses that for device to device communication relay selection [refer Abstract], relay related information can include relay usable time period of a user equipment, the time period at which the UE is usable for device to device communication relay [paragraph 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of W1 for a UE to determine a running state as a relay node based upon a measurement result [refer W1; Abstract] to incorporate time periods for which a device can perform relay communications as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known procedure with regards to relay selection that would yield predictable results [refer C1; Abstract].
Regarding claims 8 and 25, W1 fails to disclose that in case that the first manner comprises that the first channel quality threshold is transmitted by the relay terminal, the obtaining, by the first terminal, the first channel quality threshold in the first manner comprises: obtaining, by the first terminal, the first channel quality threshold through a second broadcast message transmitted by the relay terminal over the sidelink interface.
C1 discloses sending a relay discovery message through broadcasting [paragraph 0252], a UE can receive relay related information sent by adjacent relay nodes [paragraph 0735].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of W1 for providing a relay discovery message that is broadcasted [refer W1; paragraph 0112] to incorporate broadcasting relay related information from devices as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known procedure with regards to relay selection that would yield predictable results [refer C1; Abstract].
Regarding claims 10 and 27, W1 in view of C1, as applied to claims 8 and 25, teaches a second broadcast message comprises at least one of: a relay discovery message [W1; paragraph 0112][C1; paragraph 0252].
Regarding claim 11, W1 fails to disclose in case that the first terminal obtains a plurality of first channel quality thresholds and/or a plurality of second channel quality thresholds, determining, by the first terminal, the first channel quality threshold and/or the second channel quality threshold in a second manner, the second manner comprises at least one of:
selecting any one of the plurality of first channel quality thresholds as the first channel quality threshold.
C2 discloses a UE managing multiple thresholds used for managing relay device reselection [paragraph 0014], quality information can indicate whether a quality is below a minimum quality threshold, above a preferred quality threshold or between two quality thresholds (i.e. one higher than the other)[paragraph 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of W1 for a UE to determine a running state as a relay node based upon a measurement result [refer W1; Abstract] to incorporate the multiple thresholds for relay selection as taught by C2. One would be motivated to do so to provide a candidate for relay that would meet preferred criteria’s [refer C2; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 12, W1 fails to disclose a descending order of priority comprises: a first channel quality threshold and/or a second channel quality threshold received by the first terminal from the network device; a first channel quality threshold and/or a second channel quality threshold received by the first terminal from the relay terminal; and a pre-configured first channel quality threshold and/or a pre-configured second channel quality threshold.
C2 discloses a UE managing multiple thresholds used for managing relay device reselection [paragraph 0014], a UE can evaluate the quality of communication routes through candidate relay devices and a current relay UE device using different thresholds and different connections (i.e. descending priority or preference)[paragraph 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of W1 for a UE to determine a running state as a relay node based upon a measurement result [refer W1; Abstract] to incorporate the multiple thresholds for relay selection as taught by C2. One would be motivated to do so to provide a candidate for relay that would meet a preferred criteria [refer C2; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 16, W1 teaches transmitting, by the first terminal, second indication information to a second terminal, the second indication information being used for triggering the second terminal to perform relay re-selection [paragraph 0111], the second terminal comprises a remote terminal (i.e. remote UE)[paragraph 0111].
Regarding claim 18, W1 teaches transmitting, by the first terminal, the second indication information to the second terminal comprises: transmitting, by the first terminal, the second indication information to the second terminal through dedicated signaling (i.e. notification message)[paragraph 0110] over the sidelink interface (i.e. PC5 interface)[paragraph 0108].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412