Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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.
Claims 8-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “module” and/or “unit” (e.g. “a network connection module”, “a search module”, “a monitoring module”, “a storage module”, and “a processing module”) are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed functions. Figure 1 and paragraph 0018 of the specification appear to discuss these modules/units, but do not provide adequate structure.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
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.
Claim 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0370902) in view of Back et al. (US 2023/0079552).
For claim 1, Wang teaches: A method for selecting a bridging point, utilized by an electronic device within a network connection environment to select the bridging point, wherein the network connection environment comprises at least one node capable of connecting to the electronic device (see at least 0295-0296, fig. 1-2, 16, remote UE (electronic device) and relay UEs (node) may comprise processor/memory for communications); the method includes the steps of:
searching for the at least one node when the electronic device is to connect (see at least 0250-0255, fig. 11, remote UE may perform relay selection process to determine suitable relay UEs. Also see fig. 7, relay discovery procedure);
determining whether the electronic device has a connection requirement or whether there is a specified node among the at least one node (see at least 0250-0255, fig. 11, remote UE may provide QoS requirement to candidate relay UEs, comprising a connection requirement. See at least 0011, QoS requirement may be bit rate));
if the electronic device has the connection requirement or there is the specified node among the at least one node, identifying a suitable node based on the connection requirement or the specified node from the at least one node (see at least 0250-0255, fig. 11, candidate relay UEs may each indicate whether they support the QoS requirement, thus being identified as suitable nodes);
if the suitable node is found, randomly selecting the bridging point from the suitable node (see at least 0251, more than one candidate may support the QoS requirement; 0253, UE may randomly select one of those candidates as the relay UE).
Wang does not explicitly teach: if the electronic device does not have the connection requirement and there is no specified node among the at least one node, randomly selecting the bridging point from the at least one node. Back from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0153, source UE may randomly select a relay UE from among candidate relay UEs that sent a relay response; no QoS/bit rate requirement is disclosed to be provided by source UE). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Back to the system of Wang, so the remote UE may randomly select a relay UE when it does not have a connection requirement e.g. bit rate, as suggested by Back. The motivation would have been to facilitate bridging by selecting a relay from any available relays (Back 0153).
For claim 2, Wang, Back teaches claim 1, Wang further teaches: wherein if no suitable node is found, the bridging point is randomly selected from the at least one node (see at least 0252, if a candidate fulfills a link quality threshold, it may still be selected regardless if it does not meet the QoS/bit rate requirement, thus candidates might not meet QoS suitability; 0253, UE may randomly select one of those candidates as the relay UE).
For claim 3, Wang, Back teaches claim 1, Wang further teaches: wherein if no suitable node is found, a node closest to meeting the connection requirement is selected as the bridging point from the at least one node (see at least 0252, if a candidate fulfills a link quality threshold, it may still be selected regardless if it does not meet the QoS/bit rate requirement, thus candidates might not meet QoS suitability; in one embodiment the candidate with the highest supported QoS parameter may still be selected).
For claim 4, Wang, Back teaches claim 1, Wang further teaches: wherein if only a single suitable node exists, the suitable node is selected as the bridging point (see at least 0250, one or more relay UEs may indicate QoS parameter support, thus only one candidate might meet QoS requirement and be selected).
For claim 5, Wang, Back teaches claim 1, Wang further teaches: further including the steps of: monitoring whether the bridging point meets the connection requirement or has a communication capability; and if the bridging point does not meet the connection requirement or does not have the communication capability, reselecting the bridging point from the at least one node (see at least 0227, relay reselection may be triggered if quality between the remote UE and relay UE is below a threshold).
For claim 6, Wang, Back teaches claim 1, Wang further teaches: wherein the connection requirement includes at least one of the following conditions: signal strength, priority, signal source, response time, usage traffic, time, hop, area, preference, authority, distance, frequency, temperature, humidity, altitude, atmospheric pressure, longitude, latitude, coordinates, load, age, lifespan, version, power, gender, identity, priority level, power consumption, air quality, luminous flux, spectrum, or bandwidth (see at least 0011, QoS requirement may be bit rate e.g. MBR, comprising a usage traffic/load/bandwidth requirement).
For claim 7, Wang, Back teaches claim 6, Wang further teaches: further including the steps of: storing the connection requirement as a preset connection condition; and preferentially finding the bridging point from the at least one node based on the preset connection condition (see at least 0011, QoS requirement may be set per UE, session, RAT, etc., comprising a preset condition. See at least 0252, if a candidate fulfills a link quality threshold, it may still be selected regardless if it does not meet the QoS/bit rate requirement; in one embodiment the candidate with the highest supported QoS parameter may still be selected, thus QoS parameter is used/preferred in relay selection).
Claim 8 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 9 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 10 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 12 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 5 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 13 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 6 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 14 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 7 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (US 2017/0086114) discloses relay UE selecting method performed by UE in wireless communication system and UE using the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights