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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response/communication filed 8/20/2025.
No claims have been added.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20-24 has/have been cancelled.
Claims(s) 1-15 and 19 is/are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/30/2024, 12/10/2024, 3/28/2025 and 8/20/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/5/2024. These drawings are objected.
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes illustrated in FIGs. 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, and the unlabeled lines associated with messaging between the unlabeled rectangular boxes illustrated in FIGs. 6, 7 and 8, should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, line 9 notes two occurrences of “signalling” which is considered a misspelling. The Examiner suggests chaining to “signaling”, or something similar.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5, line 2 notes two occurrences of “signalling” which is considered a misspelling. The Examiner suggests chaining to “signaling”, or something similar.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7, line 2 notes two occurrences of “signalling” which is considered a misspelling. The Examiner suggests chaining to “signaling”, or something similar.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11, line 3 notes “signalling” which is considered a misspelling. The Examiner suggests chaining to “signaling”, or something similar.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13, line 2 notes “signalling” which is considered a misspelling. The Examiner suggests chaining to “signaling”, or something similar.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19, line 6 notes “signalling” which is considered a misspelling. The Examiner suggests chaining to “signaling”, or something similar.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4, line 2 notes, “operation further comprise, from the second user equipment” which is considered improper grammar. The Examiner suggests changing to “operation further comprise receive, from the second user equipment”, or something similar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahmad et al. US 20230189059.
As to claim 1:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A first user equipment, the first user equipment comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory comprising code that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the first user equipment to perform operations, the operations comprising:
(see FIG. 1B)
receiving, from a network function, an indication of a first time from a network function and an indication that the network function cannot provide a requested service to the first user equipment as a result of congestion control in the network function; and
(“The relay WTRU may send to the relay-WTRU AMF a NAS request (e.g., a registration request or a service request) to transition out of idle state (1). The relay-WTRU AMF may receive and reject the NAS request due to relay-WTRU network congestion. The relay-WTRU AMF may send a NAS reject message to the relay WTRU (2). The NAS reject message may include a value for the NAS back off timer and information indicating the applicability of the back off timer (e.g. information indicating that NAS back off is only applicable to relay WTRU requests). The relay WTRU may receive the NAS reject message, initialize the NAS back off timer using the received value, and start the NAS back off timer.”; Ahmad et al; 0131)
(“NAS level congestion and subsequently application of back off timers is one such scenario. It may be possible that relay-WTRU AMF is congested causing the AMF to send NAS back off timer (e.g. mobility management) to relay WTRU. Upon receiving the back off timer, the relay WTRU would not be able to initiate mobility management signaling until the expiry of the timer.”; Ahmad et al.; 0092)
(where
“registration request or a service request) to transition out of idle state (1). The relay-WTRU AMF may receive and reject the NAS request due to relay-WTRU network congestion. The relay-WTRU AMF may send a NAS reject message to the relay WTRU (2). The NAS reject message may include a value for the NAS back off timer and information indicating the applicability of the back off timer (e.g. information indicating that NAS back off is only applicable to relay WTRU requests).”/”It may be possible that relay-WTRU AMF is congested causing the AMF to send NAS back off timer (e.g. mobility management) to relay WTRU” Maps to “receiving, from a network function, an indication of a first time from a network function and an indication that the network function cannot provide a requested service to the first user equipment as a result of congestion control in the network function”, where “send” maps to “receiving”, “relay-WTRU AMF” maps to “network function”, “include” maps to “indication”, “value for the NAS back off timer” maps to “first time from a network function”, “reject”/“registration request or a service request”/”relay-WTRU AMF”/”relay WTRU” maps to “the network function cannot provide a requested service to the first user equipment”, where “relay-WTRU AMF” maps to “network function”, “relay WTRU” maps to “first user equipment”, “registration request or a service request” maps to “requested service”, “The relay-WTRU AMF may receive and reject the NAS request due to relay-WTRU network congestion”/”It may be possible that relay-WTRU AMF is congested causing the AMF to send NAS back off timer (e.g. mobility management) to relay WTRU” maps to “as a result of congestion control in the network function”, where “relay-WTRU AMF is congested”/”mobility management” maps to “as a result of congestion control in the network function”
signalling, to a second user equipment, an indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment over a direct link, and an indication of a second time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay.
(“The relay WTRU may also reject new direct connection requests received while the back off timer is still running. The reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected due to relay-WTRU being under NAS level congestion conditions. The reject message may include (e.g., also include) a value for the back off timer indicating to the remote WTRU that the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 connections for the duration of the timer….”; Ahmad et al.; 0139)
(where
“reject message” maps to “signalling”, “remote WTRU” maps to “second user equipment”, “relay WTRU…reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected”/”include a value for the back off timer…indicating…not able to accept” maps to “an indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment over a direct link”, where “reject”/”specific cause code”/”back off timer…indicating…not able to accept” maps to “indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment”, “reject new direct connection requests”/”PC5” maps to “over a direct link”
Ahmad et al. teaches a relay WTRU receiving a NAS Reject message from a relay-WTRU AMF indicating back off timer for relay WTRU accesses, where the NAS reject messages indicates the message rejection is due to congestion in the relay-WTRU AMF and where the NAS rejection message includes a value for performing back off and teaches and teaches the relay WTRU sending reject messages to a remote WTRU during the back off time, where the rejection message send to the remote WTRU includes a specific cause code and a value for a back off timer.
As to claim 3:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
The first user equipment, wherein the network function is an access and mobility function.
(“The relay WTRU may send to the relay-WTRU AMF a NAS request (e.g., a registration request or a service request) to transition out of idle state (1). The relay-WTRU AMF may receive and reject the NAS request due to relay-WTRU network congestion. The relay-WTRU AMF may send a NAS reject message to the relay WTRU (2). The NAS reject message may include a value for the NAS back off timer and information indicating the applicability of the back off timer (e.g. information indicating that NAS back off is only applicable to relay WTRU requests). The relay WTRU may receive the NAS reject message, initialize the NAS back off timer using the received value, and start the NAS back off timer.”; Ahmad et al; 0131)
(“NAS level congestion and subsequently application of back off timers is one such scenario. It may be possible that relay-WTRU AMF is congested causing the AMF to send NAS back off timer (e.g. mobility management) to relay WTRU. Upon receiving the back off timer, the relay WTRU would not be able to initiate mobility management signaling until the expiry of the timer.”; Ahmad et al.; 0092)
As to claim 4:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A first user equipment, wherein the operations further comprise from the second user equipment, a second request to provide said relay before the indication of the first time is received from the network function.
(“Based on a characteristic of the received back off timer (e.g., the additional information associated with the NAS back off timer), the relay WTRU may decides to relay the MO request from the remote WTRU (4). For example, if the remote WTRU and relay WTRU are served by different AMFs, then the relay WTRU may determine to relay the remote WTRU request if the back-off timer additional information indicates that remote WTRU requests are allowed (if served by a different AMF). The relay WTRU may determine the remote WTRU AMF identity based on a remote WTRU temporary identity (e.g., a GUTI).”; Ahmad et al.; 0133)
As to claim 5:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A first user equipment, wherein said signalling the indications comprises signalling the indications using a direct link release request message in response to the second request.
(“Based such decision, the relay-WTRU AMF may send a NAS reject message to the relay WTRU. The NAS reject message may include a value for a NAS back off timer (2). After receipt of the NAS reject message, the relay WTRU may start its NAS back-off timer using (or based on) the received value and may initiates the link release procedure with the remote WTRU. The relay WTRU may send a link release request PC5 message (3) as part of the link release procedure. The link release request PC5 message may include (i) a specific cause code for indicating the cause for link release is that the relay WTRU experiencing, expected to experience and/or has been informed of upstream congestion, and (ii) a value for a PC5 back off timer. The remote WTRU may receive the link release request PC5 message, and a consequence, the remote WTRU becomes aware of the congestion situation at the relay WTRU. The cause code, for example, indicates the AMF/NAS congestion experienced by the relay WTRU, and the value for PC5 back off timer informs the remote WTRU of a duration of time for which the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 requests.”; Ahmad et al.; 0108)
As to claim 6:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A first user equipment, wherein the operations further comprise receiving a second request to provide said relay after the indication of the first time is received from the network function.
(see FIG. 6)
As to claim 7:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A first user equipment in accordance with claim 6, wherein said signalling the indications comprises signalling the indications using a direct link establishment reject message in response to receipt of the second request.
(“The relay WTRU may also reject new direct connection requests received while the back off timer is still running. The reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected due to relay-WTRU being under NAS level congestion conditions. The reject message may include (e.g., also include) a value for the back off timer indicating to the remote WTRU that the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 connections for the duration of the timer. The relay WTRU may derive this PC5 back off timer value from the received NAS back off value, e.g., as an offset or multiplier of the NAS back off timer value or back off timer remaining running time. The remote WTRU may re-attempt connecting with the relay WTRU upon that timer expiry.”; Ahmad et al.; 0137)
As to claim 8:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A first user equipment, wherein the first time comprises a first value for a timer, and the operations further comprise initiating the timer in response to receipt of the first value, and wherein said indication of a second time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay indicates a remaining time left on the timer when the indication is sent.
(“The relay WTRU may also reject new direct connection requests received while the back off timer is still running. The reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected due to relay-WTRU being under NAS level congestion conditions. The reject message may include (e.g., also include) a value for the back off timer indicating to the remote WTRU that the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 connections for the duration of the timer. The relay WTRU may derive this PC5 back off timer value from the received NAS back off value, e.g., as an offset or multiplier of the NAS back off timer value or back off timer remaining running time. The remote WTRU may re-attempt connecting with the relay WTRU upon that timer expiry.”; Ahmad et al.; 0137)
As to claim 10:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A second user equipment, the second user
equipment comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory comprising code that, when executed by the at least one processor,
(see FIG. 1B)
causes the second user equipment to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receive receiving, from a first user equipment, an indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment over a direct link, and an indication of a time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay.
(“The relay WTRU may send to the relay-WTRU AMF a NAS request (e.g., a registration request or a service request) to transition out of idle state (1). The relay-WTRU AMF may receive and reject the NAS request due to relay-WTRU network congestion. The relay-WTRU AMF may send a NAS reject message to the relay WTRU (2). The NAS reject message may include a value for the NAS back off timer and information indicating the applicability of the back off timer (e.g. information indicating that NAS back off is only applicable to relay WTRU requests). The relay WTRU may receive the NAS reject message, initialize the NAS back off timer using the received value, and start the NAS back off timer.”; Ahmad et al; 0131)
(“NAS level congestion and subsequently application of back off timers is one such scenario. It may be possible that relay-WTRU AMF is congested causing the AMF to send NAS back off timer (e.g. mobility management) to relay WTRU. Upon receiving the back off timer, the relay WTRU would not be able to initiate mobility management signaling until the expiry of the timer.”; Ahmad et al.; 0092)
(“The relay WTRU may also reject new direct connection requests received while the back off timer is still running. The reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected due to relay-WTRU being under NAS level congestion conditions. The reject message may include (e.g., also include) a value for the back off timer indicating to the remote WTRU that the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 connections for the duration of the timer….”; Ahmad et al.; 0139)
(where
“reject message” maps to “signalling”, “remote WTRU” maps to “second user equipment”, “relay WTRU…reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected”/”include a value for the back off timer…indicating…not able to accept” maps to “an indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment over a direct link”, where “reject”/”specific cause code”/”back off timer…indicating…not able to accept” maps to “indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment”, “reject new direct connection requests”/”PC5” maps to “over a direct link”
Ahmad et al. teaches a relay WTRU receiving a NAS Reject message from a relay-WTRU AMF indicating back off timer for relay WTRU accesses, where the NAS reject messages indicates the message rejection is due to congestion in the relay-WTRU AMF and where the NAS rejection message includes a value for performing back off and teaches and teaches the relay WTRU sending reject messages to a remote WTRU during the back off time, where the rejection message send to the remote WTRU includes a specific cause code and a value for a back off timer.
As to claim 12:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise establishing the direct link with
the first user equipment before receiving said indications, and wherein said receive the indications comprises receiving the indications in a direct link release
request message.
(“Based on a characteristic of the received back off timer (e.g., the additional information associated with the NAS back off timer), the relay WTRU may decides to relay the MO request from the remote WTRU (4). For example, if the remote WTRU and relay WTRU are served by different AMFs, then the relay WTRU may determine to relay the remote WTRU request if the back-off timer additional information indicates that remote WTRU requests are allowed (if served by a different AMF). The relay WTRU may determine the remote WTRU AMF identity based on a remote WTRU temporary identity (e.g., a GUTI).”; Ahmad et al.; 0133)
(“Based such decision, the relay-WTRU AMF may send a NAS reject message to the relay WTRU. The NAS reject message may include a value for a NAS back off timer (2). After receipt of the NAS reject message, the relay WTRU may start its NAS back-off timer using (or based on) the received value and may initiates the link release procedure with the remote WTRU. The relay WTRU may send a link release request PC5 message (3) as part of the link release procedure. The link release request PC5 message may include (i) a specific cause code for indicating the cause for link release is that the relay WTRU experiencing, expected to experience and/or has been informed of upstream congestion, and (ii) a value for a PC5 back off timer. The remote WTRU may receive the link release request PC5 message, and a consequence, the remote WTRU becomes aware of the congestion situation at the relay WTRU. The cause code, for example, indicates the AMF/NAS congestion experienced by the relay WTRU, and the value for PC5 back off timer informs the remote WTRU of a duration of time for which the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 requests.”; Ahmad et al.; 0108)
As to claim 13:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A second user equipment in accordance with claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise signalling, to the first user equipment, a second request to provide said relay before receiving said indications, and wherein said receive the indications comprises receiving the indications in response to the second request.
(“The relay WTRU may also reject new direct connection requests received while the back off timer is still running. The reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected due to relay-WTRU being under NAS level congestion conditions. The reject message may include (e.g., also include) a value for the back off timer indicating to the remote WTRU that the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 connections for the duration of the timer. The relay WTRU may derive this PC5 back off timer value from the received NAS back off value, e.g., as an offset or multiplier of the NAS back off timer value or back off timer remaining running time. The remote WTRU may re-attempt connecting with the relay WTRU upon that timer expiry.”; Ahmad et al.; 0137)
(see FIG. 6)
As to claim 14:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A second user equipment wherein said received indication of a time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay indicates a remaining time left on a timer of the first user equipment when the indication is provided.
(“The relay WTRU may also reject new direct connection requests received while the back off timer is still running. The reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected due to relay-WTRU being under NAS level congestion conditions. The reject message may include (e.g., also include) a value for the back off timer indicating to the remote WTRU that the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 connections for the duration of the timer. The relay WTRU may derive this PC5 back off timer value from the received NAS back off value, e.g., as an offset or multiplier of the NAS back off timer value or back off timer remaining running time. The remote WTRU may re-attempt connecting with the relay WTRU upon that timer expiry.”; Ahmad et al.; 0137)
As to claim 19:
Ahmad et al. discloses:
A method for a first user equipment, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network function, an indication of a first time from a network function and an indication that the network function cannot provide a requested service to the first user equipment as a result of congestion control in the network function; and
(“The relay WTRU may send to the relay-WTRU AMF a NAS request (e.g., a registration request or a service request) to transition out of idle state (1). The relay-WTRU AMF may receive and reject the NAS request due to relay-WTRU network congestion. The relay-WTRU AMF may send a NAS reject message to the relay WTRU (2). The NAS reject message may include a value for the NAS back off timer and information indicating the applicability of the back off timer (e.g. information indicating that NAS back off is only applicable to relay WTRU requests). The relay WTRU may receive the NAS reject message, initialize the NAS back off timer using the received value, and start the NAS back off timer.”; Ahmad et al; 0131)
(“NAS level congestion and subsequently application of back off timers is one such scenario. It may be possible that relay-WTRU AMF is congested causing the AMF to send NAS back off timer (e.g. mobility management) to relay WTRU. Upon receiving the back off timer, the relay WTRU would not be able to initiate mobility management signaling until the expiry of the timer.”; Ahmad et al.; 0092)
(where
“registration request or a service request) to transition out of idle state (1). The relay-WTRU AMF may receive and reject the NAS request due to relay-WTRU network congestion. The relay-WTRU AMF may send a NAS reject message to the relay WTRU (2). The NAS reject message may include a value for the NAS back off timer and information indicating the applicability of the back off timer (e.g. information indicating that NAS back off is only applicable to relay WTRU requests).”/”It may be possible that relay-WTRU AMF is congested causing the AMF to send NAS back off timer (e.g. mobility management) to relay WTRU” Maps to “receiving, from a network function, an indication of a first time from a network function and an indication that the network function cannot provide a requested service to the first user equipment as a result of congestion control in the network function”, where “send” maps to “receiving”, “relay-WTRU AMF” maps to “network function”, “include” maps to “indication”, “value for the NAS back off timer” maps to “first time from a network function”, “reject”/“registration request or a service request”/”relay-WTRU AMF”/”relay WTRU” maps to “the network function cannot provide a requested service to the first user equipment”, where “relay-WTRU AMF” maps to “network function”, “relay WTRU” maps to “first user equipment”, “registration request or a service request” maps to “requested service”, “The relay-WTRU AMF may receive and reject the NAS request due to relay-WTRU network congestion”/”It may be possible that relay-WTRU AMF is congested causing the AMF to send NAS back off timer (e.g. mobility management) to relay WTRU” maps to “as a result of congestion control in the network function”, where “relay-WTRU AMF is congested”/”mobility management” maps to “as a result of congestion control in the network function”
signalling, to a second user equipment, an indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment over a direct link, and an indication of a second time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay.
(“The relay WTRU may also reject new direct connection requests received while the back off timer is still running. The reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected due to relay-WTRU being under NAS level congestion conditions. The reject message may include (e.g., also include) a value for the back off timer indicating to the remote WTRU that the relay WTRU may not be able to accept new PC5 connections for the duration of the timer….”; Ahmad et al.; 0139)
(where
“reject message” maps to “signalling”, “remote WTRU” maps to “second user equipment”, “relay WTRU…reject message may include a specific cause code indicating that the link establishment request is rejected”/”include a value for the back off timer…indicating…not able to accept” maps to “an indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment over a direct link”, where “reject”/”specific cause code”/”back off timer…indicating…not able to accept” maps to “indication that the first user equipment is temporarily unable to provide a relay to a network for the second user equipment”, “reject new direct connection requests”/”PC5” maps to “over a direct link”
Ahmad et al. teaches a relay WTRU receiving a NAS Reject message from a relay-WTRU AMF indicating back off timer for relay WTRU accesses, where the NAS reject messages indicates the message rejection is due to congestion in the relay-WTRU AMF and where the NAS rejection message includes a value for performing back off and teaches and teaches the relay WTRU sending reject messages to a remote WTRU during the back off time, where the rejection message send to the remote WTRU includes a specific cause code and a value for a back off timer.
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 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) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad et al. US 20230189059 in view of Kim et al. US 20200178343 (U.S. Patent Application Publications citation #2, listed on IDS dated 2024-10-30).
As to claim 2:
Ahmad et al. as described above does not explicitly teach:
receive, from the second user equipment after said second time, a first request to provide said relay; and
signal an acceptance to the request.
However, Kim et al. further teaches a back-off/ACK capability which includes:
receive, from the second user equipment after said second time, a first request to provide said relay; and
signal an acceptance to the request.
(“0. The RRC connection of the eRelay-UE may be barred/fail or the back-off timer (e.g., extended wait timer) for the RRC connection request may be running.”; Kim et al.; 0835)
(“7. The eRelay-UE may send PC5-S: Connection Activation acknowledge (ACK) to the eRemote-UE to confirm whether a connection to the network is active.”; Kim et al.; 0840)
(see FIG. 24)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the back-off/ACK capability of Kim et al. into Ahmad et al. By modifying the processing/communications of Ahmad et al. to include the back-off/ACK capability as taught by the processing/communications of Kim et al., the benefits of improved sidelink (Ahmad et al.; Abstract) with improved discovery (Kim et al.; 0690) are achieved.
As to claim 11:
Ahmad et al. as described above does not explicitly teach:
receive, from the second user equipment after said second time, a first request to provide said relay; and
signal an acceptance to the request.
However, Kim et al. further teaches a back-off/ACK capability which includes:
receive, from the second user equipment after said second time, a first request to provide said relay; and
signal an acceptance to the request.
(“0. The RRC connection of the eRelay-UE may be barred/fail or the back-off timer (e.g., extended wait timer) for the RRC connection request may be running.”; Kim et al.; 0835)
(“7. The eRelay-UE may send PC5-S: Connection Activation acknowledge (ACK) to the eRemote-UE to confirm whether a connection to the network is active.”; Kim et al.; 0840)
(see FIG. 24)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the back-off/ACK capability of Kim et al. into Ahmad et al. By modifying the processing/communications of Ahmad et al. to include the back-off/ACK capability as taught by the processing/communications of Kim et al., the benefits of improved sidelink (Ahmad et al.; Abstract) with improved discovery (Kim et al.; 0690) are achieved.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad et al. US 20230189059 in view of Interdigital Patent Holdings WO 2016073984 (Foreign Patent Documents citation #2, listed on IDS dated 2024-10-30, hereinafter “Interdigital”).
As to claim 9:
Ahmad et al. as described above does not explicitly teach:
the first time comprises a first value for a timer, and the operations further comprise initiating the timer in response to receipt of the first value, and wherein said indication of a second time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay indicates the received value.
However, Interdigital further teaches a same length/back off/timer capability which includes:
the first time comprises a first value for a timer, and the operations further comprise initiating the timer in response to receipt of the first value, and wherein said indication of a second time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay indicates the received value.
(“Upon reception of congestion notification from the network, a relay WTRU may in turn notify the remote WTRUs about the congestion notification. This may be done over control or user plane as described previously. Moreover, it may be broadcast or sent in a unicast manner to all remote WTRUs that are being served by the relay WTRU . The relay WTRU may indicate some information to the remote WTRUs which may include, for example, the type of congestion control (e.g., whether it applies to data or signaling), and the time during which the congestion control should be respected (e.g., a back off (BO) timer). The relay WTRU may provide a BO timer that is at least the same length of that received from the network. In addition, the PLMN ID from which this BO was received, whether or not the WTRU is allowed to reselect to another relay WTRU, the application or group ID that this congestion affects or whether it applies to all applications or group ID that a remote WTRU belongs to, may be also included.”; Inter; 0211)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the same length/back off/timer capability of Inter into Ahmad et al. By modifying the processing/communications of Ahmad et al. to include the same length/back off/timer capability as taught by the processing/communications of Inter, the benefits of improved sidelink (Ahmad et al.; Abstract) with reduced processing (Inter; 0184) are achieved.
As to claim 15:
Ahmad et al. as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein said received indication of a time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay indicates a start value of a timer of the first user equipment.
However, Interdigital further teaches a same length/back off/timer capability which includes:
wherein said received indication of a time when the first user equipment will be able to provide said relay indicates a start value of a timer of the first user equipment.
(“Upon reception of congestion notification from the network, a relay WTRU may in turn notify the remote WTRUs about the congestion notification. This may be done over control or user plane as described previously. Moreover, it may be broadcast or sent in a unicast manner to all remote WTRUs that are being served by the relay WTRU . The relay WTRU may indicate some information to the remote WTRUs which may include, for example, the type of congestion control (e.g., whether it applies to data or signaling), and the time during which the congestion control should be respected (e.g., a back off (BO) timer). The relay WTRU may provide a BO timer that is at least the same length of that received from the network. In addition, the PLMN ID from which this BO was received, whether or not the WTRU is allowed to reselect to another relay WTRU, the application or group ID that this congestion affects or whether it applies to all applications or group ID that a remote WTRU belongs to, may be also included.”; Inter; 0211)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the same length/back off/timer capability of Inter into Ahmad et al. By modifying the processing/communications of Ahmad et al. to include the same length/back off/timer capability as taught by the processing/communications of Inter, the benefits of improved sidelink (Ahmad et al.; Abstract) with reduced processing (Inter; 0184) are achieved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210329487 – teaches congestion associated with PC5 (see para. 0139).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-1037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-10am, 1pm-5pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached on 571-272-3139. 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.
MICHAEL K. PHILLIPS
Examiner
Art Unit 2464
/MICHAEL K PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 2464