DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 5/13/2026.
Claims 1,3,4,7,8,10-12,16,18,21,23-25,27 and 37 are pending.
Claims 1,3,4,7,8,10-12,16,18,21,23-25,27 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 .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 5/13/2026. Claims 1,3,11,12,21,23,24, and 37 were amended, claims 2,13,15, and 22 were canceled, and claims 1,3,4,7,8,10-12,16,18,21,23-25,27 and 37 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1,3,4,7,8,10-13,15,16,18,21-25,27 and 37 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) in further view of Chang et al. (US Pub. 2023/0422141)(C2 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1,21 and 37, 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],
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 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].
However, W1 fails to disclose a second channel quality threshold, the second channel quality threshold being higher than the first channel quality threshold, and
in response to the first terminal obtaining 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 a first channel quality threshold and/or a second channel quality threshold transmitted by the relay terminal which the first terminal expects to access as the first channel quality threshold and/or the second channel quality threshold; selecting a lowest channel quality threshold among the plurality of second channel quality thresholds as the second channel quality threshold; or selecting a highest channel quality threshold among the plurality of second channel quality thresholds as the second 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 (i.e. lowest channel quality threshold), above a preferred quality threshold or between two quality thresholds (i.e. one higher than the other)[paragraph 0026], relay selection/reselection can be based upon using a plurality of thresholds, more than two thresholds may be used in some circumstances [paragraph 0039].
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 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 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].
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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1,21 and 37, applicant argues that the applied reference, C1, does not teach the claim limitations, namely, “performing activation and/or deactivation of a relay function of the first terminal based on a first channel quality or first indication information.”
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Many of the applicant’s arguments are directed towards whether Chen et al. (C1 as noted in the above rejection and hereafter) disclosed certain claim limitations [refer Applicant’s arguments, pages 15-19], however it is noted that many of the claim limitations, such as the activation and/or deactivation of relay functions and the first terminal being a terminal having the relay function were cited as being disclosed by Wang et al. (W1 as noted in the above rejection and hereafter), as noted in the prior Non-Final rejection mailed on 2/20/2026 and in the current Office action as noted above, not C1. Similarly, arguments were explicitly directed towards whether C1 disclosed “the first terminal determines the first channel quality threshold and/or the second channel quality threshold when the terminal obtains a plurality of first channel quality thresholds and/or a plurality of second channel quality thresholds,” which again was noted as being disclosed by another prior art reference, Chang et al. (C2 as noted in the above rejection and hereafter).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, W1 is directed towards determining a D2D relay node, which includes measuring a running state and using this running state with a predetermined condition to notify a UE to act as a relay node accordingly [refer W1; Abstract]. C1, in the same field of endeavor specifically with regards to device to device relay selection [refer C1; Abstract], was explicitly cited for receiving relay related information sent by an adjacent relay node [C1; 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 [C1; paragraph 0738]. Based upon this disclosure, examiner reasoned that 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 the explicit teaching of a UE to determine a running state as a relay node based upon measurement results [refer W1; Abstract] so that an appropriate relay node can be established in a D2D communication [refer W1; paragraph 0010] to incorporate the teachings of C1 so that the UE’s taught by W1 can perform measurements of other links between the UE and other UEs or relays. The motivation being to use a known procedure with regards to relay selection that would yield predictable results [refer C1; paragraph 0738] when such relay determinations are measurement based [refer W1; Abstract].
In response to applicant's argument that C1 is “silent about the specific manner in which the first terminal determines the first channel quality threshold and/or the second channel quality threshold when the terminal obtains a plurality of first channel quality thresholds and/or a plurality of second channel quality thresholds”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, as required by MPEP 2111, to determine a channel quality threshold when a device obtains a plurality of channel quality thresholds can be seen as merely identifying a particular threshold to use for a channel quality threshold when managing multiple thresholds as taught by C2.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights