Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction
2. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 22-37 and 40-42, drawn to method of establishing D2D connection in mobile network, classified in class H04W 76/14.
II. Claims 38-39 and 43, drawn to configuring mobile network to deliver intercepted data to law enforcement agency, classified in class H04W 12/08.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons: Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombinations. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination I as claimed do not require the particulars of the subcombination. The subcombination II has separate utility such as discarding old copy of data exchanged on the sidelink connection.
Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given above and have acquired a separate status in the technological complex art, examination of all inventions would impose serious burden to the examiner. Accordingly, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
3. In the remarks, filed February 9, 2026, applicant asserts that groups I and II are not distinguishable from one another because claims 26, 38 and 40 share common features. Examiner disagrees.
While claims 26 and 40 do share technical features, claims 38 and 40 do not share the same features. For instance, claim 40 does not require discarding any copy of communications data exchanged on the sidelink connection that is required in claim 38. Moreover, claim 38 also differs from claims 33-35 of group I because claims 33-35 require discarding information about the sidelink connection, e.g., xIRI, rather than communications data exchanged on the sidelink connection.
Accordingly, the restriction has been revised as set forth above to more properly grouping inventions I and II and to correct a clerical grouping error of claim 43.
4. In response to applicant’s response filed February 9, 2026, the restriction has been revised and made final. Claims 38-39 and 43 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner as being drawn to non-elected invention.
Applicant is requested to cancel non-elected claims 38-39 and 43 in the next correspondence.
Art Rejection
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 22-30 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0306815, in view of Fransen, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No.2015/0288724.
Per claim 22, Gulati discloses a communications network node comprising interface circuitry, at least one processor and memory comprising instructions which when performed by the at least one processor cause the node to perform operations of:
a) receiving a sidelink connection request from a user equipment (UE), the sidelink connection request including an identification of at least one other UE involved in the sidelink connection (see par 0065);
b) informing the target UE and the at least one other UE of a UE-to-UE direct communication interface frequency to use for the sidelink connection, i.e., via negotiation (see par 0066);
c) sending a request message to the at least one other UE, the request message requesting the at least one other UE to provide to the node information about the sidelink connection and a copy of communications data exchanged on the sidelink connection (see par 0069);
d) sending to an access and mobility management function (AMF) network element (NE) an information message including information about the connection received from the at least one other UE (see par 0058); and
e) sending to a user plane function, UPF, network element (NE) content messages including a copy of communications data exchanged on the connection received from the at least one other UE (see par 0059).
Gulati does not explicitly teach sending to AMF information about sidelink connection. Gulati however teaches that AMF manages all UE registrations and connections (see par 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that information about all connections including sidelink connection would have been forwarded to the AMF for registration and managing purposes.
Gulati also does not teach determining that the UE is a target UE to be monitored for lawful interception (LD) purposes and sending data received over the sidelink connection to the UPF. However, Fransen discloses a prior art method for performing lawful intercepting over sidelink (D2D) connection, wherein in response to determining a UE of a sidelink connection is a target for a LD purpose, requesting a base station to intercept communication exchanged over the sidelink connection (see Fransen, par 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Fransen teaching in Gulati because it would have enabled performing lawful intercepting on the sidelink connection.
It would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art that such the data collected over the sidelink connection would have been sent to UPF for processing (see Gulati 0059).
Per claim 23, Fransen teaches that a controller for a base station is configured to permit a request for the sidelink connection and sending information about the sidelink connection the UE (see Fransen, par 0068). It should be noted that in a typical mobile network the controller comprises the AMF component (see Gulati, par 0058).
Per claim 24, Fransen teaches, in response to determining D2D connection is allowed, informing the UEs communication frequency to use for the connection (see par 0074). Fransen does not expressly teach providing a false reason why the connection is denied, i.e., because of the LI request.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to recognize that because the lawful interception (LI) request is hidden from the target UE, the reason to deny a connection based on LI should have not mentioned or revealed the LI request.
Per claim 25, Gulati teaches sending information to the AMF including indication that a UE has made a (sidelink) connection request and identification of the other UE involved in the (sidelink) connection (see par 0058).
Per claim 26, Fransen also teaches receiving information about a sidelink (or D2D) connection (see par 0069), and sending intercepted related information (IRI) containing the information about the sidelink connection to a delivery function (DF) for forwarding to a law enforcement management function (LEMF) (see par 0086, 0092).
Per claim 27, Fransen further teaches receiving from a lawful interception administration function (ADMF) a request to receive notification of a target UE sending a request for permission to be involved in a sidelink (or D2D) connection, receiving a request for the target UE to be involved in a sidelink connection, and sending a response to the network node specifying that information about the sidelink connection, e.g., IRI event (see par 0094).
Fransen does not explicitly teach sending to AMF network element information about sidelink connection. Gulati however teaches that AMF manages all UE registrations and connections (see Gulati, par 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that information about all connections including sidelink connection would have been forwarded to the AMF for registration and managing purpose.
Per claim 28, Fransen teaches determining whether the target UE is allowed to connect to D2D communication interface (see par 0069).
Per claims 29-30, Fransen teaches receiving information from the node including an indication that the target UE (UE1) has made a sidelink (D2D) connection request and the identification of at least one other UE (UE2) involved in the sidelink connection and sending an IRI to the DF including indication that the target UE has made a sidelink request (see par 0094).
Per claims 41-42, Gulati teaches that the system comprises at least a communication network device for hosting an AMF network element and a UPF network element (see par 0058).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 31-37 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.
9. Claim 40 is allowed over prior art of record.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
3/9/26