DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2023/0371111, “Xu”) in view of Lu (US 2023/0071186, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a first relay node discovery method, applied to a second relay node, comprising:
- receiving a first message, wherein the first message carries a service identifier of a first service (See S1301 Fig.13, the source terminal, i.e. the remote terminal, sends a discovery message A including an identifier of the source terminal and an identifier of the target terminal; See ¶.403, the relay mode corresponding to the first application of the remote terminal may be represented as: an identifier of the first application and an identifier of the relay mode corresponding to the first application of the remote terminal; See ¶.27, when the RSC (Relay Service Code) exists in the first relay mode, the remote terminal may send the RSC corresponding to the first relay mode, or the remote terminal may further determine the first indication information corresponding to the first relay mode. Therefore, the remote terminal may indicate the first relay mode to the relay terminal by sending the first indication information; See ¶.41, the information about the second relay mode includes at least one of the following: an RSC corresponding to the second relay mode; or third indication information indicating the second relay mode; Examiner’s Note: Lu discloses the limitation “a service identifier”), and
- the first message is used for an indication to assist in discovering a first relay node capable of accessing the first service (See ¶.15, the remote terminal selects, based on the capability of the remote terminal, the first relay mode from the relay mode supported by the remote terminal and the first policy information, to better match the capability of the remote terminal, and improve performance of transmitting the data of the first application by the remote terminal in the first relay mode; See ¶.387, based on a capability of the remote terminal, the relay mode supported by the remote terminal. In a possible implementation, considering that different relay modes have different complexity, the remote terminal may determine, based on the processing capability of the remote terminal, the relay mode that can be supported); and broadcasting the first message (See ¶.25, the remote terminal may send the first message in a broadcast manner, so that the relay terminal can obtain the information about the first relay mode by using the received first message, and prepare for transmitting the data of the first application between the remote terminal and the relay terminal in the first relay mode).
Xu discloses the method “the remote terminal may send the relay service code, which is considered as a code identifying service, corresponding to the first relay mode (Xu, See ¶.27) and the relay mode corresponding to the first application of the remote terminal may be represented as: an identifier of the first application and an identifier of the relay mode corresponding to the first application of the remote terminal” (Xu, See ¶.403), but does not explicitly disclose the limitation “a service identifier of a first service”.
However, Lu explicitly discloses “a service identifier of a first service (Lu, See ¶.40, the remote terminal may send a discovery request message. The discovery request message may include the discovery process related information, such as an application service identifier (Lu, See ¶.40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “a service identifier of a first service” as taught by Lu into the system of Xu, so that it provides a way of having a discovery response message from the remote terminal (Lu, See ¶.40).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses “wherein the first message is used for an indication to assist a remote terminal in discovering the first relay node capable of accessing the first service (See S1303 & S1304 Fig.13, ¶.403-404 and ¶.413); wherein the receiving the first message comprises: receiving the first message broadcast by the remote terminal (See ¶.25, the remote terminal may send the first message in a broadcast manner); or receiving the first message, broadcast by a further second relay node, from the remote terminal (See ¶.128, the relay terminal may send the fifth message to the target terminal in a broadcast manner); wherein the first message further carries a terminal identifier of the remote terminal (See S1301, including an identifier of the source terminal).”
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses “the first message is used for an indication to assist the first relay node capable of accessing the first service in being discovered (See ¶.258, the relay terminal forwards signaling between the relay terminal and the target terminal based on an access stratum layer (Access Stratum layer, AS layer), so that the source terminal establishes the PC5 connection to the target terminal for further Uu connection to the network); wherein the receiving the first message comprises; receiving the first message broadcast by the first relay node; or receiving the first message, broadcast by a further second relay node, from the first relay node; wherein the first message further carries a node identifier of the first relay node (See S1301-S1308 Fig.13, including an identifier of the target terminal; Examiner’s Note: Lu further discloses the method for the relay terminal to be granted to respond to the remote terminal, See Lu, ¶.40).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses “the first message further carries indication information on whether the first service is allowed to be accessed through a relay mode (See ¶.312, the remote terminal is authorized to serve as a remote terminal to access the network via the relay terminal); wherein the broadcasting the first message comprises: determining, according to the first message, whether the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode; and broadcasting the first message if the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode (See Fig.13 and ¶.312; Examiner’s Note: Lu further discloses the method for the relay terminal is granted to respond to the remote terminal, See Lu, ¶.40).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Xu and Lu disclose “the broadcasting the first message if the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode (Xu, See ¶.312, the remote terminal is authorized to serve as a remote terminal to access the network via the relay terminal) comprises: if the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode (Lu, See ¶.40, If the relay terminal is granted to respond to the remote terminal, then a discovery response message may be sent to the remote terminal), determining whether a service allowed to be accessed by the second relay node comprises the first service; and if the service allowed to be accessed by the second relay node comprises the first service, broadcasting the first message (Lu, See ¶.81-84, after viewing the discovery request message, the relay terminal sends a discovery response message to the remote terminal in a case that the relay terminal is granted to respond to the discovery request message. The discovery response message includes the SIB1. [0082] Here, SIB1 is carried in the discovery response message and serves as a container in form of a byte stream that has been encoded by the Uu interface. [0083] The remote terminal receives the discovery response message, and acquires the SIB1 from the discovery response message. [0084] Here, the remote terminal may determine based on the SIB1 whether to allow initiation of a call in the serving cell of the relay terminal).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses “before receiving the first message, further comprising: obtaining a policy parameter of the second relay node from a network device, wherein the policy parameter comprises a service identifier of the service allowed to be accessed by the second relay node (See ¶.309, the relay terminal is registered with a network, and obtains authorization information of the relay terminal and communication parameter information of the relay terminal; See ¶.310, the relay terminal obtains the authorization information of the relay terminal and the communication parameter information of the relay terminal from a PCF (a PCF that is responsible for providing a policy for the relay terminal during registration of the relay terminal) corresponding to the relay terminal, where the authorization information includes information about that the relay terminal is authorized to perform indirect communication, and the relay terminal is authorized to serve as a relay terminal to provide a relay service for the remote terminal. The communication parameter information may include a PC5 QoS parameter for authorization; See further S601 Fig.6 and ¶.311-313).”
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses “wherein the network device comprises a policy control function (PCF) (See Fig.6, PCF), and the obtaining the policy parameter of the second relay node from the network device (See S202 Fig.2 and aS601 Fig.6), comprises: sending a second message to the PCF, wherein the second message is used to request the policy parameter from the PCF and indicates a capability of the second relay node; and receiving the policy parameter configured by the PCF for the second relay node (See S505 Fig.5, transmit data of a first application in the first relay mode to PCF; See S606 Fig.6-Fig.12).”
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses “after broadcasting the first message, further comprising: receiving a connection request message sent by the remote terminal, wherein the connection request message is used for an indication to assist the remote terminal in connecting to the first relay node capable of accessing the first service; and establishing, based on the second relay node and the connection request message, a communication between the remote terminal and the first relay node (See S204 Fig.2, receiving a connection request from the remote terminal to establish between an the remote terminal and UE-network; See ¶.300, Specifically, the relay terminal forwards an RRC connection request of the remote terminal based on an access stratum configuration (for example, configuration information of a radio bearer or the layer 2 identifier of the PC5 link established between the remote terminal and the relay terminal); See S1305-S1308 Fig.13, establishing a PC5 connection between relay nodes).”
Regarding claim 11, it is a first relay node discovery method claim applied to a remote terminal corresponding to the method claim 1 applied to a second relay node and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 12, it is a first relay node discovery method claim applied to a first relay node corresponding to the method claim 1 applied to a second relay node and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, it is a first relay node discovery apparatus claim applied to a second relay node corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations “a memory, a transceiver, and a processor (See Fig.18)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, they are claims corresponding to claims 2 & 3, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 16, it is a first relay node discovery apparatus claim applied to a remote terminal corresponding to the method claim 11, except the limitations “a memory, a transceiver, and a processor (See Fig.18)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, it is a first relay node discovery apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 12, except the limitations “a memory, a transceiver, and a processor (See Fig.18)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 21, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 22, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 11 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lu and further in view of Seo (US 2017/0086125, “Seo”).
Regarding claim 5, Xu and Seo disclose “the first message further carries a remaining number of hops for which the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode; wherein the broadcasting the first message if the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode comprises: determining whether the remaining number of hops for which the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode is greater than or equal to 1; if the remaining number of hops is greater than or equal to 1, updating the remaining number of hops and broadcasting the first message, wherein the broadcast first message carries the updated remaining number of hops (Seo, ¶.69, the hop count is reduced one by one whenever the discovery signal is relayed. That is, the source UE may establish the maximum hop count (N) to the hop count, and may transmit the established hop count. Thereafter, the UE having received the discovery signal having “Hop Count=N” may set the hop count to “Hop Count=N−1” whenever the discovery signal is relayed. The discovery signal having “Hop Count=0” is no longer relayed. In this case, the hop count may indicate the number of remaining hops to be relayed in the future; Examiner’s Note: as rejected in claim 2, Xu discloses the method of the first service being allowed to be accessed through the relay mode, See S1303 & S1304 Fig.13, ¶.403-404 and ¶.413).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the first message further carries a remaining number of hops” as taught by Seo into the system of Xu and Lu, so that it provides a way of indicating the number of remaining hops to be relayed in the future (Seo, See ¶.69).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lu and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2023/0337301, “Guo”).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses “after broadcasting the first message, further comprising: receiving a first response message sent by the first relay node (Xu. See S1303 Fig.13, the target terminal sends a discovery response), wherein the first response message is used for an indication to the second relay node to assist in informing the remote terminal that the first relay node capable of accessing the first service has been discovered; and sending a second response message to the remote terminal (See S1304 Fig.13, relay terminal sends a discovery response message to the source terminal, i.e. remote terminal),
but Xu and Lu do not explicitly disclose what Guo discloses “wherein the second response message comprises the service identifier of the first service, a node identifier of the first relay node, and a node identifier of the second relay node (Guo, See Figs.7-8 and ¶.98, message 3 is a discovery response message; carries information on UE2, such as information on a service supported by UE2, the user identifier of UE2 at the application layer, and the link layer identifier (Layer 2 ID) of UE1. The frame structure of Message 3 transmitted by UE2 carries the link layer identifier (Layer 2 ID) of UE2; See ¶.99, after receiving Message 3, the Relay UE obtains the Layer 2 ID of UE1, and then transmits Message 4 to UE1 if Message 3 is a discovery response message. The content of Message 4 includes the link layer identifier of UE2 and the above information on UE2, and the frame structure of Message 4 transmitted by the Relay UE carries the link layer identifier of the Relay UE. Optionally, Message 4 may also include the link layer identifier of UE1).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the second response message comprises the service identifier of the first service, a node identifier of the first relay node, and a node identifier of the second relay node” as taught by Guo into the system of Xu and Lu, so that it provides a way of carrying information such as a service supported by UE2, which is considered as the first relay in this claim (Guo, See ¶.64).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lu and further in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0320017, “Li”).
Regarding claim 23, Xu discloses “obtaining a policy parameter of the remote terminal from a network device (Xu, See S601 Fig.6, PCF sends first policy information to the remote terminal), wherein the policy parameter comprises at least one of the following: a service allowed to be accessed by the remote terminal, whether the service allowed to be accessed by the remote terminal is allowed to be accessed through a relay mode (See S604a-S605 Fig.6),
but Xu and Lu do not explicitly disclose what Li discloses “or a maximum number of hops for which the service allowed to be accessed by the remote terminal is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode (Li, See ¶.11, the first service discovery message further includes a maximum hop count, and the maximum hop count is used to indicate a maximum quantity of times the service discovery is allowed to be relayed; See ¶.219, where the multi-hop service matching indication information is used to indicate that the service matching response message is used to respond to a relayed service discovery message).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “or a maximum number of hops for which the service allowed to be accessed by the remote terminal is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode” as taught by Li into the system of Xu and Lu, so that it provides a way of indicating a maximum quantity of times the service discovery is allowed to be delayed (Li, See ¶.11).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411