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 with all due respect, the examiner does not find them persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 8 of the response, that the “request message in block 903” disclosed in Fig. 9, does not teach or disclose the claimed “transmit an uplink message to a base station to trigger the base station to send a wake-up signal to the second UE to trigger the second UE to re-enter the active mode for sidelink communications from the sleep mode”. One reason provided is that this request message is allegedly only disclosed as being used for the purpose of discovering relay UEs or to initiate direct communication with the remote UE. This argument is unpersuasive because a phosita is not limited in his understanding of the disclosure only by what is explicitly stated verbatim in it. According to what is disclosed in Aminaka, pursuant to the skill level of a phosita, the disclosed features in Fig. 9, in particular, the message in step 903, may be understood to further trigger the base station to send a wake up signal to the second UE, as required by the claim language, and as discussed in the rejection in detail. That is, the disclosure in Fig. 9 performs the functions required by the applicable claim language, above. This suffices to demonstrate that Aminaka, in particular Fig. 9, discloses a broadest reasonable interpretation BRI embodiment of the claim language, and this is sufficient to sustain the examiner’s burden to show anticipation.
Furthermore, please note that the entirety of the limitation at issue here, i.e., “transmit an uplink message to a base station to trigger the base station to send a wake-up signal to the second UE to trigger the second UE to re-enter the active mode for sidelink communications from the sleep mode”, is in fact rejected by a combination of references, not Aminaka alone. Thus, 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). In other words, Applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the Response attacking Aminaka alone, is unpersuasive.
Please see rejections below for details.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 1-3,5-6,14-16,18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0049259 A1 to Aminaka et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0052796 A1 to Takano et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0112858 A1 to Nguyen et al.
As to claim 1, Aminaka discloses A first user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first UE to (Fig. 9, “remote UE 2”):
receive, from a second UE that is in an active mode (Fig. 9, “relay UE 1”), a sidelink message that comprises an identification of the second UE (Figs. 8-9, paragraphs 96-102: step 902: sync signal received at remote UE 2 [“first UE”] from relay UE 1 [“second UE” which is actively sending sync signals] that enables remote UE 2 to identify the sending relay UE1/second UE, teaching this limitation);
determine, subsequent to receipt of the identification of the second UE, to further communicate via sidelink communications with the second UE (Figs. 8-9, paragraphs 96-102, steps 902-903);
transmit an uplink message to a base station to trigger the base station to send a wake-up signal to the second UE, the uplink message comprising the identification of the second UE (Figs. 8-9, 5, paragraphs 77-85, 96-102, step 903: “sl communication request (include. Detected relay UE ID)”, teaching the recited “UL message”; further note that the “activation request 905” teaches “the base station to send a wake-up signal to the second UE”, since 905 requests second/relay UE 1 to start sidelink communications, thus teaching a broadest reasonable interpretation embodiment of “wake-up signal” since the second/relay UE 1 was not activated previously for SL communications and is now activated/awaken); and
communicate with the second UE after the second UE has re-entered the active mode for sidelink communications as a result of transmission of the uplink message (Figs. 8-9, paragraphs 96-102, steps 903-908, see discussion above).
Aminaka does not appear to explicitly disclose determine, while the relay device is in a sleep mode, to further communicate with the relay device; transmit, while the relay device is in the sleep mode, an UL message to a base station to trigger the base station to send a wake-up signal to the relay device to trigger the relay device to re-enter the active mode for communications with the first UE from the sleep mode.
Takano discloses determine, while the relay device is in a sleep mode, to further communicate with the relay device (Fig. 10, paragraphs 135-142: steps 416, 420: “The relay device 30C operating in the sleep mode monitors the L1/L2 signaling according to the DRX cycle, and in the case an instruction to shift from the sleep mode to the active mode is issued in the L1/L2 signaling, shifts to the active mode (S420).”);
transmit, while the relay device is in the sleep mode, an UL message to a base station (Fig. 10, paragraphs 135-142: steps 412 [teaching “an UL message to the base station that triggers …”] 416, 420: “Since the relay mode 30C [“relay device”] notified by the mobile terminal 20 is in the sleep mode, the control unit 142 of the base station 10 transmits a control signal indicating shift from the sleep mode to the active mode using the L1/L2 signaling (S416) [S416 teaching the recited “wake up signal to the relay device”]”, thus teaching that S412 is the recited “UL message” and it is transmitted “while the relay device is in the sleep mode”, as recited) to trigger the base station to send a wake-up signal to the relay device to trigger the relay device to re-enter the active mode for communications with the first UE from the sleep mode. (Fig. 10, paragraphs 135-142: steps 416, 420: “Since the relay mode 30C [“relay device”] notified by the mobile terminal 20 is in the sleep mode, the control unit 142 of the base station 10 transmits a control signal indicating shift from the sleep mode to the active mode using the L1/L2 signaling (S416) [S416 teaching the recited “wake up signal to the relay device”]”)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, Aminaka’s teaching with Takano’s teachings to reject this claim, due to the structural similarities between the relay/UE environments in both references, in particular, in view of the close correspondence between Aminaka’s “relay UE” and Takano’s “relay device”. In particular, Aminaka’s teaching of “determine, subsequent to receipt of the identification of the second UE, to further communicate via sidelink communications with the second UE” and Takano’s “determine, while the relay device is in a sleep mode, to further communicate with the relay device” may be combinable to a phosita, to reject “determine, subsequent to receipt of the identification of the second UE and while the second UE is in a sleep mode, to further communicate via sidelink communications with the second UE”. This is because, due to the correspondence between the “relay UE”/”second UE” and “relay device”, the above teaching in Aminaka may be further and additionally incorporated or imbued with Takano’s feature of “determine, while the relay device is in a sleep mode, to further communicate with the relay device”.
Also, Aminaka’s teaching of “transmit an uplink message to a base station to trigger the base station to send a wake-up signal to the second UE, the uplink message comprising the identification of the second UE” and Takano’s “transmit, while the relay device is in the sleep mode, an UL message to a base station to trigger the base station to send a wake-up signal to the relay device to trigger the relay device to re-enter the active mode for communications with the first UE from the sleep mode” may be combinable to a phosita, to reject “transmit, while the second UE is in the sleep mode, an uplink message to a base station to trigger the base station to send a wake-up signal to the second UE to trigger the second UE to re-enter the active mode for sidelink communications from the sleep mode, the uplink message comprising the identification of the second UE”. This is because, due to the correspondence between the “relay UE”/”second UE” and “relay device”, a phosita would have found it obvious to have the triggering take place while the “relay UE”/”second UE” is in the sleep mode. The cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures featuring relay elements. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for communications featuring relays and relay communications (Aminaka, paragraphs 1-33; Takano, paragraphs 1-21 and Fig. 10). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
Aminaka and Takano do not appear to explicitly disclose the identification of the second UE received before the second UE was in the sleep mode.
Nguyen discloses the identification of the second UE received before the second UE was in the sleep mode (Fig. 2A, steps 211 – 226, and back to 212, paragraphs 28, 58, 86, 90-98, disclosing that a device such as 1st/2nd device 202/203 will enter “sleep mode”, but then will wake up to perform discovery, including sending a “3. discovery response transmitting 224”, whereupon 202/203 may then fall back asleep; further disclosing that “discovery response messages” sent by a device 202/230 may include information identifying the sending device, e.g., “Discovery response messages from different D2D-UEs sent on a discovery response channel may be separated by orthogonal sequences of same network configured group”, thus teaching that such discovery response message include “ID of the second UE”, if the second UE is one of 202/203, further, in view of the teaching above that such response discovery message is sent, and then the sending UE/device may then fall into sleep mode, this teaches that “the identification of the second UE [is] received before the second UE was in the sleep mode”, as recited).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine, the “the identification of the second UE received before the second UE was in the sleep mode” as taught in Nguyen, in Aminaka and Takano’s combined teaching of “the uplink message comprising the identification of the second UE”, to reject “the uplink message comprising the identification of the second UE, received before the second UE was in the sleep mode”, since the ID of the second UE taught in Aminaka/Takano may obviously be embodied by Nguyen’s “the ID of the second UE received before the second UE was in the sleep mode”, since both IDs are of a UE/device engaged in communications featuring relays. The cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures featuring relay elements. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for communications featuring relays and relay communications (Aminaka, paragraphs 1-33; Takano, paragraphs 1-21 and Fig. 10; Nguyen, paragraphs 1-28). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Aminaka, Nguyen and Takano teach the UE as in the parent claim 1.
Aminaka further discloses wherein, to transmit the uplink message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first UE to: transmit, in the uplink message, multiple identifications of multiple UEs with which the first UE is to communicate via the sidelink communications, the second UE being one of the multiple UEs. (Figs. 8-9, paragraphs 96-102, teaching the remote UE 2/first UE “attempts to receive a synchronization signal transmitted from any neighboring UEs” and PLMN 100/eNB 31 “selects a relay UE that should activate the SL communication …”, teaching to a PHOSITA that multiple UE IDs are transmitted by the remote UE2/first UE to PLMN 100/eNB 31, teaching this limitation).
As to claim 3, Aminaka, Nguyen and Takano teach the UE as in the parent claim 1.
Aminaka further discloses wherein, to transmit the uplink message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first UE to: transmit a scheduling request or a buffer status report as the uplink message (Figs. 8-9, paragraphs 96-102, “SL communication request 903” requests PLMN/eNB to schedule or allocate a relay UE, teaching an embodiment of this limitation )
As to claim 5, Aminaka, Nguyen and Takano teach the UE as in the parent claim 1.
Aminaka further discloses wherein: the sidelink communications comprise groupcast or unicast communications. (Figs. 8-9, paragraphs 96-102, 908: SL unicast communications between 1 and 2 )
As to claim 6, Aminaka, Nguyen and Takano teach the UE as in the parent claim 1.
Aminaka further discloses wherein the identification of the second UE is one of a layer 1 identifier, a layer 2 identifier, a layer 3 identifier. (Figs. 8-9, paragraphs 96-102, step 903: “sl communication request (include. Detected relay UE ID)”; further see paragraphs 1-21, disclosing the various standards governing the wireless environment in which the invention takes place, such standards applicable to layers 1-3, thus teaching to a PHOSITA that the UE ID is layer 1, 2, or 3).
As to claim 14-16,18,19, see rejection for claims 1-3,5-6 above
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 are allowed.
Claims 4,17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights