CTNF 18/711,002 CTNF 91699 DETAILED ACTION The office action is a response to an application filed on May 16, 2024, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4,6, 11-14 ,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al. ( Tsuda hereafter) (US 20180234919 A1) in view of Hong ( Hong hereafter) (US20240147221A1) . . Regarding claim 1 Tsuda teaches, A method, comprising: detecting (Following the establishment of the relay node, the MTC device then sends a registration request message to the eNB via the relay node) , by a user equipment (UE) (MTC device) , at least one relay node (terminal device operates as a relay node (Fig. 6, 600A-D)) (Tsuda; [0077-0078] the MTC device starts transmitting a device-to-device (D2D) discovery signal. If a terminal device within coverage of the eNB receives this discovery signal, the terminal device operates as a relay node to allow signalling between the MTC device and eNB (using, for example, D2D signalling between the in-coverage terminal device and MTC device). The operation of the in-coverage terminal device as a relay node is performed in accordance with authorization from the network. Following the establishment of the relay node, the MTC device then sends a registration request message to the eNB via the relay node) and Tsuda fails to explicitly teach, transmitting, by the UE, a capability report associated with the at least one relay node to a network node in an event that a trigger condition is triggered, wherein the trigger condition comprises that the at least one relay node is changed, capability information of the at least one relay node is changed However, in the same field of endeavor Hong teaches transmitting, by the UE, a capability report (terminal may send the capability information) associated with the at least one relay node to a network node in an event that a trigger condition is triggered (so that the first base station may acquire the capability information of the terminal) , wherein the trigger condition comprises that the at least one relay node is changed (terminal to switch from the first base station) , capability information of the at least one relay node is changed (The capability information is used for the second base station to determine whether to accept the switching request for the terminal to switch from the first base station to the second base station) (Hong; [0093] the terminal may send the capability information to the core network, so that the first base station may acquire the capability information of the terminal from the core network. The first base station may send this capability information to the second base station. The capability information is used for the second base station to determine whether to accept the switching request for the terminal to switch from the first base station to the second base station) , or a serving cell of the UE is changed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hong in order to choose the better channel (Hong; [0030]). Regarding claim 11 Tsuda teaches, A user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor (Tsuda; Fig. 4, [0230]) , detecting (Following the establishment of the relay node, the MTC device then sends a registration request message to the eNB via the relay node) , by a user equipment (UE) (MTC device) , at least one relay node (terminal device operates as a relay node (Fig. 6, 600A-D)) (Tsuda; [0077-0078] the MTC device starts transmitting a device-to-device (D2D) discovery signal. If a terminal device within coverage of the eNB receives this discovery signal, the terminal device operates as a relay node to allow signalling between the MTC device and eNB (using, for example, D2D signalling between the in-coverage terminal device and MTC device). The operation of the in-coverage terminal device as a relay node is performed in accordance with authorization from the network. Following the establishment of the relay node, the MTC device then sends a registration request message to the eNB via the relay node.) and Tsuda fails to explicitly teach, a transmitter, transmitting, by the UE, a capability report associated with the at least one relay node to a network node in an event that a trigger condition is triggered, wherein the trigger condition comprises that the at least one relay node is changed, capability information of the at least one relay node is changed However, in the same field of endeavor Hong teaches a transmitter, transmitting, by the UE, a capability report (terminal may send the capability information) associated with the at least one relay node to a network node in an event that a trigger condition is triggered (so that the first base station may acquire the capability information of the terminal) , wherein the trigger condition comprises that the at least one relay node is changed (terminal to switch from the first base station) , capability information of the at least one relay node is changed (The capability information is used for the second base station to determine whether to accept the switching request for the terminal to switch from the first base station to the second base station) (Hong; [0093] the terminal may send the capability information to the core network, so that the first base station may acquire the capability information of the terminal from the core network. The first base station may send this capability information to the second base station. The capability information is used for the second base station to determine whether to accept the switching request for the terminal to switch from the first base station to the second base station) , or a serving cell of the UE is changed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hong in order to choose the better channel (Hong; [0030]). Regarding claims 2 and 12 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 1 and 11, Tsuda fails to explicitly teach, wherein the at least one relay node is changed comprises that a number of the at least one relay node is changed Hong further teaches, wherein the at least one relay node is changed comprises that a number of the at least one relay node is changed (Hong; [0045] the second base station may determine, based on this capability information, whether to accept the switching request for the terminal to switch from the first base station to the second base station.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hong in order to choose the better channel (Hong; [0030]). Regarding claims 3 and 13 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 1 and 11, Tsuda fails to explicitly teach, wherein the capability report comprises the capability information of the at least one relay node. Hong further teaches, wherein the capability report comprises the capability information of the at least one relay node (Hong; [0054] the second base station may determine the possible multi-card problems of the terminal based on the number of SIM cards supported by the terminal and/or the network standard supported by each SIM card slot. In this way, if the second base station supports solving the possible multi-card problems of the terminal, the second base station accepts the switching request of the terminal.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hong in order to choose the better channel (Hong; [0030]). Regarding claims 4 and 14 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 3 and 13, Tsuda fails to explicitly teach, wherein the capability information of the at least one relay node comprises at least one relay type of the at least one relay node. Hong further teaches, wherein the capability information of the at least one relay node comprises at least one relay type of the at least one relay node. (Hong; [0089-90] The terminal may communicate with a base station as a user device, the base station including, but not limited to, a 4G base station, a 5G base station, a 6G base station. In an example, the base station may be a first base station and/or a second base station as described in any of the above examples.[0090] In an example, the capability sending method includes: sending capability information of the terminal to a first base station, for the first base station to send the capability information to a second base station) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hong in order to choose the better channel (Hong; [0030]). Regarding claims 6 and 16 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 1 and 11, Tsuda further teaches, wherein the capability report further comprises at least one aggregated capability information of at least one aggregated group formed by the UE and the at least one relay UE (Tsuda; [0071] The network can assign a different DRX/eDRX parameter (for example, a different offset value) to each sub-group among the MTC devices assigned to the same group. To be clear, each sub-group is part of the same group and thus MTC devices in the same group use the same relay node 600A-D to exchange signalling with the eNB even if they are in different sub-groups. However, different MTC devices in different sub-groups of the same group may have a different DRX/eDRX value so that the wake periods of different sub-groups within the same group are different)(See fig. 6) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5, 9, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda-Hong as applied to claim s 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Kazmi ( (Kazmi hereafter) (US 20130040558 A1) . Regarding claims 5 and 15 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 4 and 14, Tsuda-Hong fails to explicitly teach, wherein one of the at least one relay node comprises more than one relay types However, in the same field of endeavor Kazmi teaches, wherein one of the at least one relay node comprises more than one relay types (Kazmi; [0112]The relay node 510 may report the relay type capability to the new donor node, i.e. the target node 501, 520, before, during or just after the handover. [0116] When the relay node 510, in particular when being a movable relay node, detects that its mobility state is changed e.g. from non-zero speed to stationary state or vice versa. In this case the relay node 510 may report the current state of its mobility) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda-Hong to include the above recited limitations as taught by Kazmi in order to handling capabilities of a wireless relay in the communications network (Kazmi; [0069]). Regarding claims 9 and 19 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 1 and 11, Tsuda-Hong fails to explicitly teach , further comprising: transmitting, by the UE, separated capability reports for the at least one relay node and the UE. Kazmi further teaches, further comprising: transmitting, by the UE, separated capability reports for the at least one relay node and the UE (Kazmi; [0141] The relay type capability reporting enables the receiving node, i.e.the target node 501, 520, to explicitly and fully identify the relay characteristics. This has two main benefits. First, the network may execute the procedures which are relevant to the characteristics of the relay node 510 or the network 500 may provide necessary information, e.g. parameter values, to assist the relay to perform specific tasks.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda-Hong to include the above recited limitations as taught by Kazmi in order to handling capabilities of a wireless relay in the communications network (Kazmi; [0069]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda-Hong as applied to claim s 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Muddukrishna et al. ( Muddukrishna hereafter) (US 20240244573 A1) . Regarding claims 7 and 17 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 6 and 16, Tsuda-Hong fails to explicitly teach, wherein an aggregated type of the aggregated group is based on the relay type of the relay node in the aggregated group. However, in the same field of endeavor Muddukrishna teaches, wherein an aggregated type of the aggregated group is based on the relay type of the relay node in the aggregated group (Muddukrishna; [0049] multiple measurements between multiple radio nodes, e.g. the first relay node 111, and/or the second set of network nodes 133, 134, 135,136, 137, and the second network device 121, 112, the measurements may be aggregated to improve the location estimation of the second network device 121, 112. As an example, the first location server 101 may transmit the first location to the first relay node 111 and to the network nodes in the second set of network nodes such as e.g. the sixth network node 136 and the seventh network node 137) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda-Hong to include the above recited limitations as taught by Muddukrishna in order to improve the accuracy of determining the second location (Muddukrishna; [0048]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda-Hong as applied to claim s 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Singh et al. ( Singh hereafter) (US 20210022209 A1) . Regarding claims 8 and 18 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 6 and 16, Tsuda-Hong fails to explicitly teach, wherein the capability report comprises a plurality of aggregated capability information associated with different relay types of the at least one relay node. However, in the same field of endeavor Singh teaches, wherein the capability report comprises a plurality of aggregated capability information associated with different relay types of the at least one relay node. (Singh; [0070 ]if the first SIM and the second SIM are associated with different network operators, then the UE 120 may determine to operate in the multi-SIM mode. Alternatively, if the first SIM and the second SIM are associated with different network operators, then the UE 120 may use additional information (e.g., user input, a user preference, an additional condition, and/or the like) to determine whether to operate in the multi-SIM mode or the single SIM mode.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda-Hong to include the above recited limitations as taught by Singh in order to relay transmissions for other UEs. (Singh; [0070]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda-Hong as applied to claim s 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Abedini et al. ( Abedini hereafter) (US 2022004 - 6637 A1). Regarding claims 10 and 20 Tsuda-Hong teaches, The Claims 1 and 11, Tsuda-Hong fails to explicitly teach , wherein the capability report further comprises at least one of a supported bandwidth, a number of antennas and a supported modulation order of the at least one relay node However, in the same field of endeavor Abedini teaches, wherein the capability report further comprises at least one of a supported bandwidth, a number of antennas and a supported modulation order of the at least one relay node (Abedini; [0167] the control configuration indicating control information for relaying operations to be performed by the relay node 715 may indicate a receive configuration, a transmit configuration, a reporting configuration, a numerology configuration, a beamforming configuration, resource element (RE) mapping information (e.g., indicating RE indexes of occupied tones of a communication), channel estimation information (e.g., indicating information required by the relay node 715 to perform channel estimation, such as resources and configurations associated with reference signals to be used for channel estimation), modulation order information) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Tsuda-Hong to include the above recited limitations as taught by Abedini in order to be used by the relay node for specific relaying operations (Abedini; [0168]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILFRED THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0353. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thurs 9:00 am-4:00 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, Noel R Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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. /W. T/Examiner, Art Unit 2416 /NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/711,002 Page 2 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/711,002 Page 3 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/711,002 Page 4 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/711,002 Page 5 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/711,002 Page 6 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/711,002 Page 8 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/711,002 Page 9 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/711,002 Page 10 Art Unit: 2416
Prosecution Insights