DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Basu Mallick et al (2023/0283413).
Regarding claim 15, Basu Mallick discloses a communication method, comprising: receiving, by a relay terminal device (see UE2 (Relay UE) in figure 4), first indication information from a first device (UE1 (TX-Remote-UE) in figure 4) (see the UE1 402 sends a PDCP discard (the first indication information) to the UE2 404 if a discard timer in the UE1 402 expires in paragraph 0073); and discarding a first data packet based on the first indication information (see the UE1 402 sends a PDCP discard to the UE2 404 if a discard timer in the UE1 402 expires. If the UE2 404 did not start transmission of a corresponding PDCP PDU at the UE2 404 (e.g., RLC sequence number (“SN”) not assigned), the PDCP PDU may not be transmitted anymore (not to be transmitted anymore is equivalent with discarding) by the UE2 404 in paragraph 0073), wherein the first device (UE1) is configured to send the first data packet to a second device (UE3) via the relay terminal device (UE2) , and the relay terminal device is configured to provide a relay service for the second device (see UE-to-network relays in paragraphs 0045, 0047).
Regarding claim 16, Basu Mallick discloses sending second indication information to the first device, wherein the second indication information is useable to indicate a data packet that is successfully sent, and the first indication information is determined based on the second indication information (see after having received a TB successfully (and sending a HARQ ACK to the UE1 402 if HARQ feedback based transmission is on the first interface 408), a feedback is transmitted only if data (e.g., from the TB received on the first interface 408) to each Rx-remote-UEs is transmitted successfully in paragraph 0066; In a first communication 508 transmitted from the TX UE 502 to the relay UE 504, the TX UE 502 transmits a data packet to the relay UE 504. The TX UE 502 may also transmit a feedback request with the data packet to the relay UE 504. In a second communication 510 transmitted from the relay UE 504 to the RX UE 506, the relay UE 504 transmits the data packet to the RX UE 506. In a third communication 512 transmitted from the RX UE 506 to the relay UE 504, the RX UE 506 may transmit feedback corresponding to the data packet to the relay UE 504. In a fourth communication 514 transmitted from the relay UE 504 to the TX UE 502, the relay UE 504 may transmit the feedback corresponding to the data packet to the TX UE 502 in paragraph 0077. Note that the feedback (second indication information can be used to determine the discarding a packet in addition to the timer expiration).
Regarding claim 17, Basu Mallick discloses wherein the first indication information is useable to indicate a data packet discarded by the relay terminal device in a first periodicity, and the data packet comprises the first data packet (see instead of transmitting the PDCP and/or RLC status reporting for each TB received at the UE2 404 from the UE1 402, the UE2 404 may accumulate reports for multiple TBs and send together, either periodically or for a certain number of TBs. In some embodiments, the UE1 402 may be able to poll the UE2 404 to seek a status report in paragraph 0067).
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 1, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Luo et al (2024/0172255) in view of Wang et al (2023/0073469).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a communication method, comprising: receiving, by a relay terminal device (see Relay UE in figure 8), a first data packet from a first device (see PDCP packet and Remote UE in figure 8), and starting a first timer corresponding to the first data packet, wherein the first data packet is to be forwarded to a second device (see NG-RAN in figure 8; the relay UE forwards the remote UE's traffic by IP layer in paragraph 0137), and the relay terminal device is configured to provide a relay service for the second device (see the MAC subPDU in the PC5 MAC PDU includes one indication that indicates this MAC CE is to be forwarded to NG-RAN in paragraph 0126); and discarding the first data packet in response to the first timer expiring (see the relay UE is configured with a packet delay budget (PDB) value or a discard timer in paragraph 0130; the relay UE discards the data belonging to one logical channel, RLC channel, or RLC bearer once the corresponding discard timer expiry in paragraph 0131).
Regarding claim 3, Luo discloses wherein the discarding the first data packet comprises: discarding the first data packet by a first layer of the relay terminal device, a second layer of the relay terminal device or a third layer of the relay terminal device (see PHY, MAC, and RLC layers in figure 8; the relay UE discards the data belonging to one logical channel, RLC channel, or RLC bearer once the corresponding discard timer expiry in paragraph 0131).
Regarding claim 5, Luo discloses wherein the second layer is a layer of the first layer, and the third layer is a layer of the second layer (see PHY, MAC, and RLC layers in figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Luo discloses wherein the discarding the first data packet comprises: determining whether to discard at least one of the first data packet or a second data packet based on a cascading relationship between at least one of the first data packet and the second data packet or information of a second timer corresponding to the second data packet (the discard of the first packet is explained in the previous paragraphs and a second packet using a second discard timer will, therefore, also be discarded based on the second discard timer).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Wang and further in view of Basu Mallick et al (2023/0283413).
Regarding claim 4, Luo doesn't specifically disclose the discarding the first data packet by the third layer of the relay terminal device comprises: receiving, by the third layer, first indication information from the first layer or the second layer; and discarding, by the third layer, the first data packet based on the first indication information. However, Basu Mallick discloses receiving an indication information from the lower layer to discard the packet (see the UE1 402 may indicate a time value (e.g., ‘x’ ms) to UE2 404 for the first interface 408. The UE2 404 may then deduct ‘x’ ms from the PDB to derive its remaining PDB (e.g., ‘T2’) in paragraph 0052; the UE1 402 sends a PDCP discard to the UE2 404 if a discard timer in the UE1 402 expires. If the UE2 404 did not start transmission of a corresponding PDCP PDU at the UE2 404 (e.g., RLC sequence number (“SN”) not assigned), the PDCP PDU may not be transmitted anymore by the UE2 404 in paragraph 0073). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 7-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al (2023/0283413) in view of Luo et al (2024/0172255).
Regarding claim 7, Basu Mallick discloses a communication method, comprising: sending, by a first device (see UE1 (TX-Remote-UE) in figure 4), a first data packet (see data packet in paragraph 0049) to a second device (UE3 (RX-Remote-UE) in figure 4) via a relay terminal device (UE2 (Relay UE) in figure 4); and sending first indication information to the relay terminal device in response to the timer expiring, wherein the first indication information is useable to indicate to the relay terminal device to discard the first data packet. (see the UE1 402 sends a PDCP discard (equivalent to the first indication information) to the UE2 404 if a discard timer in the UE1 402 expires. If the UE2 404 did not start transmission of a corresponding PDCP PDU at the UE2 404 (e.g., RLC sequence number (“SN”) not assigned), the PDCP PDU may not be transmitted anymore (be discarded) by the UE2 404 in paragraph 0073). Basu Mallick discloses a discard timer but doesn't specifically disclose starting the discard timer. However, Luo discloses this feature (see starts the discard timer in paragraph 0131). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 8, Basu Mallick discloses wherein the timer comprises a timer at a packet data convergence protocol layer in the first device (see the UE1 402 sends a PDCP (packet data convergence protocol) discard to the UE2 404 if a discard timer in the UE1 402 expires in paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 9, Basu Mallick discloses wherein the first indication information comprises a radio link control layer status report or an adaptation layer status report (see using a packet data convergence protocol (“PDCP”) status reporting for layer 3 (“L3”) based relaying or using radio link control (“RLC”) status reporting on the first interface 408 if an RLC ACK is transmitted if a corresponding TB on the second interface 410 was successfully transmitted in paragraph 0066. Note that PDCP status reports can be used on both uplink and downlink).
Regarding claim 10, Basu Mallick discloses determining the first indication information (see paragraphs 0066-0067 where different ways of status reporting are used).
Regarding claim 11, Basu Mallick discloses determining the first indication information based on second indication information from the relay terminal device, wherein the second indication information is useable to indicate a data packet that is successfully sent (see after having received a TB successfully (and sending a HARQ ACK to the UE1 402 if HARQ feedback based transmission is on the first interface 408), a feedback is transmitted only if data (e.g., from the TB received on the first interface 408) to each Rx-remote-UEs is transmitted successfully in paragraph 0066; In a first communication 508 transmitted from the TX UE 502 to the relay UE 504, the TX UE 502 transmits a data packet to the relay UE 504. The TX UE 502 may also transmit a feedback request with the data packet to the relay UE 504. In a second communication 510 transmitted from the relay UE 504 to the RX UE 506, the relay UE 504 transmits the data packet to the RX UE 506. In a third communication 512 transmitted from the RX UE 506 to the relay UE 504, the RX UE 506 may transmit feedback corresponding to the data packet to the relay UE 504. In a fourth communication 514 transmitted from the relay UE 504 to the TX UE 502, the relay UE 504 may transmit the feedback corresponding to the data packet to the TX UE 502 in paragraph 0077. Note that the feedback (second indication information can be used to determine the discarding a packet in addition to the timer expiration).
Regarding claim 12, Basu Mallick discloses wherein the first indication information is useable to indicate to the relay terminal device to discard the first data packet comprises: the first indication information is useable to indicate a data packet discarded by the relay terminal device in a first periodicity, and the data packet comprises the first data packet (see the UE2 404 may accumulate reports for multiple TBs and send together, either periodically or for a certain number of TBs in paragraph 0067; if L3 relaying is used and a PDCP entity is present in a relay protocol stack, the UE1 402 sends a PDCP discard to the UE2 404 if a discard timer in the UE1 402 expires. If the UE2 404 did not start transmission of a corresponding PDCP PDU at the UE2 404 (e.g., RLC sequence number (“SN”) not assigned), the PDCP PDU may not be transmitted anymore by the UE2 404 in paragraph 0073).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Basu Mallick discloses sending the first indication information such as status reports as described in previous paragraphs and Luo discloses data radio bearer (DRB) identification information and indication information of a data packet that is to be discarded in the DRB identification information, and the data packet that is to be discarded comprises the first data packet by stating that the relay UE discards the data belonging to one logical channel, RLC channel, or RLC bearer once the corresponding discard timer expiry or the corresponding PDB cannot be ensured (see paragraph 0131).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Luo and Basu don’t specifically disclose the first indication information comprises a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) serial number (SN). However, a PDCP serial/sequence number added by the packet data convergence protocol layer to ensure reliable transmission by detecting missing or duplicate packets is well known in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claim 1, the new reference, Wang discloses a timer at an adaptation layer. Regarding independent claims 15 and 7, the applicant argued that In other words, paragraph 0073 of Mallick describes that UE1 402 sends a PDCP discard to UE2 404 if a discard timer in the UE1 402 expires. Moreover, paragraph 0073 Malik further describes that if the UE2 404 did not already start transmission of a corresponding PDCP PDU at the UE2 404, then the PDCP PDU may not be transmitted anymore by UE2 404. However, contrary to the Office's assertion, the UE2 404 not being able to transmit PDCP PDU does not correspond to discarding the PDCP PDU. For example, when the UE2 404 receives the signal to not transmit the PDCP PDU, then the UE2 404 can retain the transmitted PDCP PDU rather than discarding the PDCP PDU. The examiner disagrees because paragraph 0073 states UE1 402 sends a PDCP discard to UE2 404 if a discard timer in the UE1 expires…if the UE2 404 did not already start transmission of a corresponding PDCP PDU at the UE2 404, then the PDCP PDU may not be transmitted anymore by UE2 404. It means that if the PDCP PDU has not been sent before the UE2 receiving the PDCP discard then the PDCP PDU will not be sent. In other words, the PDU will be discarded. The applicant states that when the UE2 404 receives the signal to not transmit the PDCP PDU, then the UE2 404 can retain the transmitted PDCP PDU rather than discarding the PDCP PDU. The examiner disagrees because the purpose of sending a PDCP discard to UE2 is to discard the packet. In addition, no delay device will retain a PDU if that PDU doesn’t need to be sent to the downstream device anymore because the unused PDU will waste storage space.
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 BRIAN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
/BRIAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights