CTNF 18/711,024 CTNF 86054 DETAILED ACTION 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 § 102 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 6, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Maaref et al. (US 2015/0230224) . RE claims 1 and 11, Maaref discloses a user equipment (UE) and method if wireless communication by a UE (Paragraph 17 and 1A, target UE (TUE) 104a) , comprising: a transceiver; and a processor (Inherent components of a UE, see further paragraphs 40-44) configured to, associate with a secondary UE (Paragraph 17 and 1A, cooperating UEs (CUE’s) 104b) for collaborative transmission of a data payload of one of the UE or the secondary UE to a base station (Figure 1A and paragraphs 18-22, a plurality of CUEs and a TUE are grouped to form a “virtual multipoint transceiver where data to and from the TUE are further relayed to the network via the CUEs) ; determine a link quality with the base station or the secondary UE while associated with the secondary UE (TUE sends to a plurality of nearby UEs a “cooperation seeking request”, or CSR, message triggered by the network controller. Paragraph 27 discloses the network controller obtains channel quality measurements through, for example a CQI report and thus may choose to instruct the TUE to begin seeking potential CUEs. The TUE compiles the replies to the CSR into a set of potential CUEs and sends this to the network. The network then selects the set of CUEs “based on relatively simple selection criteria such as the content and/or strength of received replies to the CSR message, physical proximity to the TUE, network associations (e.g., being connected to a same network or a different network), or the like.”. Thus the network appears to be aware of the quality of the link between both the network and the TUE as well as the links between the TUE and the potential CUEs in addition to the physical proximity between the TUE and each potential CUE) ; determine a location of the UE or the secondary UE while associated with the secondary UE (As set forth above by paragraph 27, the network is made aware of physical proximity between the TUE and each potential CUE via the TUE reporting of the potential CUEs) ; transmit to the base station or the secondary UE, while associated with the secondary UE, at least the determined link quality or the determined location (Again, paragraph 27 discloses the TUE reporting quality and proximity information of potential CUEs to the network) ; and determine to maintain, re-establish, or disable the association with the secondary UE based on at least one of a number of factors including: the determined link quality, the determined location, or an indication received from the base station (Paragraph 27 and Figures 2-4, the network uses information on potential CUEs to instruct the TUE to form a virtual multipoint transceiver with a selected set of CUEs, referred to also as a CAS or “cooperation active set”) . RE claims 6 and 13, Maaref discloses the UE of claim 1 and method of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Maaref further discloses wherein the at least one of the number of factors for determining to maintain, re-establish, or disable the association with the secondary UE further includes an amount of the data payload of the one of the UE or the secondary UE to the base station, or a throughput for transmission of the data payload of the one of the UE or the secondary UE to the base station (Figure 4 and paragraphs 31-35 and 39, potential CUEs ranked based on estimated long term end-to-end capacity. Two example equations, one for half-duplex mode and the other for full-duplex mode, are further disclosed as a function of link quality metrics) . RE claim 15, Maaref discloses a base station, comprising: a transceiver; and a processor (Figure 1A, 102, processor and transceiver being inherent generic components) configured to: determine a link quality or a location of at least one of a first user equipment (UE) or a secondary UE (Figure 1A and paragraphs 18-22, a plurality of CUEs and a TUE are grouped to form a “virtual multipoint transceiver” where data to and from the TUE are further relayed to the network via the CUEs) ; determine a link quality with the base station or the secondary UE while associated with the secondary UE (TUE sends to a plurality of nearby UEs a “cooperation seeking request”, or CSR, message triggered by the network controller. Paragraph 27 discloses the network controller obtains channel quality measurements through, for example a CQI report and thus may choose to instruct the TUE to begin seeking potential CUEs. The TUE compiles the replies to the CSR into a set of potential CUEs and sends this to the network. The network then selects the set of CUEs “based on relatively simple selection criteria such as the content and/or strength of received replies to the CSR message, physical proximity to the TUE, network associations (e.g., being connected to a same network or a different network), or the like.”. Thus the network appears to be aware of the quality of the link between both the network and the TUE as well as the links between the TUE and the potential CUEs in addition to the physical proximity between the TUE and each potential CUE) ; instruct the first UE or the secondary UE to associate with or disassociate from the secondary UE or the first UE based on at least one of the determined link quality or location of the first UE and the secondary UE (Paragraph 27 and Figures 2-4, the network uses information on potential CUEs to instruct the TUE to form a virtual multipoint transceiver with a selected set of CUEs, referred to also as a CAS or “cooperation active set”) .; and receive a data payload that is collaboratively transmitted by the first UE and the secondary UE while the first UE and the secondary UE are associated with each other (Communication between the network and the now established “virtual multipoint transceiver”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaref in view of Kazmi et al. (US 2023/0090309, Kazmi hereafter) . RE claim 2, Maaref discloses the UE of claim 1 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to measure the link quality with the base station using one of: a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurement, or a reference signal signal-to-noise ratio (RSSINR) measurement. However, Kazmi teaches wherein the processor is configured to measure the link quality with the base station using one of: a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurement, or a reference signal signal-to-noise ratio (RSSINR) measurement (Paragraph 43 teaches a UE performs measurements on a reference signal. Here, Kazmi teaches a plurality of examples of reference signal types as well as quality measurement types. Among them are RSRP, RSRQ and RSSINR). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Maaref with the teachings of Kazmi since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (measuring link quality via one or more of RSRP, RSRQ and RSSINR) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). RE claim 7, Maaref discloses the UE of claim 1 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to send a link quality of the secondary UE with the base station using one of: a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurement, and a reference signal signal-to-noise ratio (RSSINR) measurement. However, Kazmi teaches wherein the processor is further configured to send a link quality of the secondary UE with the base station using one of: a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurement, and a reference signal signal-to-noise ratio (RSSINR) measurement. (Paragraph 43 teaches a UE performs measurements on a reference signal. Here, Kazmi teaches a plurality of examples of reference signal types as well as quality measurement types. Among them are RSRP, RSRQ and RSSINR). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Maaref with the teachings of Kazmi since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (measuring link quality via one or more of RSRP, RSRQ and RSSINR) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaref in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0105787, Park-A hereafter) . RE claims 3 and 12, Maaref discloses the UE of claim 1 and method of claim 11as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to measure the link quality with the secondary UE based on a latency of a link between the UE and the secondary UE. However, Park-A teaches wherein the processor is configured to measure the link quality with the secondary UE based on a latency of a link between the UE and the secondary UE (Sidelink bearer configuration based upon a sidelink configuration request from a UE which comprises at least “measured QoS values (e.g., measured/monitored bit rate or throughput, measured/monitored packet transmission latency, measured/monitored packet loss rate, etc.”) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Maaref with the teachings of Park-A since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (measuring link quality based on at least latency) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). RE claim 18, Maaref discloses the base station of claim 15 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein to instruct the first UE or the secondary UE to associate with the secondary UE or the first UE, the processor is further configured to: determine the link quality with the first UE or the secondary UE based on one or more factors including: latency, a packet loss rate, a measurement of received power from one or more reference signals, a measurement of quality of the one or more reference signals, a measurement of signal-to-noise ratio, and an initial access procedure failure. However, Park-A teaches wherein to instruct the first UE or the secondary UE to associate with the secondary UE or the first UE, the processor is further configured to: determine the link quality with the first UE or the secondary UE based on one or more factors including: latency, a packet loss rate, a measurement of received power from one or more reference signals, a measurement of quality of the one or more reference signals, a measurement of signal-to-noise ratio, and an initial access procedure failure (Sidelink bearer configuration based upon a sidelink configuration request from a UE which comprises at least “measured QoS values (e.g., measured/monitored bit rate or throughput, measured/monitored packet transmission latency, measured/monitored packet loss rate, etc.”) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the base station of Maaref with the teachings of Park-A since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (measuring link quality based on at least latency and packet loss rate) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaref in view of Tabet et al. (US 2015/0156693, Tabet hereafter) . RE claim 4, Maaref discloses the UE of claim 1 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to measure the link quality with the base station based on one or more of: a packet loss rate of the collaborative transmission of the data payload of the one of the UE or the secondary UE to the base station, a layer1 radio link failure, a layer2 radio link control (RLC) failure, or an initial access procedure failure. However, Tabet teaches wherein the processor is configured to measure the link quality with the base station based on a packet loss rate of the collaborative transmission of the data payload of the one of the UE or the secondary UE to the base station (Paragraph 100 teaches “While the secondary cell is active, the UEs 106 may monitor one or more link quality metrics (e.g., signal strength and/or quality metrics such as RSRP and/or RSRQ, packet loss rate, etc.) of the secondary cell, and may report the results (e.g., in a link quality report) of such monitoring back to the BS 102 (e.g., via the primary cell).”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Maaref with the teachings of Tabet since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (measuring link quality based on at least latency) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaref in view of Fujishima et al. (US 2012/0127888, Fujishima hereafter) . RE claim 5, Maaref discloses the UE of claim 1 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine a distance between the UE and the secondary UE does not meet a distance threshold received at the UE from the base station. However, Fujishima teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine a distance between the UE and the secondary UE does not meet a distance threshold received at the UE from the base station (Paragraph 322 teaches the narrowing down of candidate relay devices. One criteria is the geographical distance between the terminal and a relay device. Position and distances are calculated and the distance is judged by a threshold. In the example taught, a candidate more than 200m away from the terminal is excluded). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Maaref with the teachings of Fujishima since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (narrowing candidates based on a distance threshold) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaref in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0314939, Park-B hereafter) . RE claims 8 and 14, Maaref discloses the UE of claim 1 and method of claim 11 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: based on a message received from the secondary UE over a link between the UE and the secondary UE, inform the base station of a radio link failure of the secondary UE with the base station for disabling the association of the UE with the secondary UE. However, Park-B teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: based on a message received from the secondary UE over a link between the UE and the secondary UE, inform the base station of a radio link failure of the secondary UE with the base station for disabling the association of the UE with the secondary UE (Paragraphs 349-352 teaches a Tx UE having established a sidelink link with an Rx UE. When RLF occurs in the sidelink, the RLF is reported to the base station. “That is, when the UE (Tx UE or Rx UE) declares RLF on SL, the UE reports the RLF declaration to the BS, and the BS does not allocate transmission resources to the UE for which the radio link has been broken any longer due to the RLF. Alternatively, when the UE detects RLF on SL, the UE may report the RLF detection to the BS. Upon receipt of the report of the RLF detection from the UE, the BS may discontinue transmission resource allocation (release a resource grant), if transmission resource allocation to the UE is in progress. Alternatively, when the UE declares RLF for SL, the UE does not perform a transmission resource allocation request procedure any longer for pending transmission data. That is, the UE does not transmit an SR or a sidelink BSR to the BS”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Maaref with the teachings of Park-B in order to detect and mitigate RLF of a UE to UE link. RE claim 19, Maaref discloses the base station of claim 15 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the first UE, the secondary UE, and a third UE are associated with each other for collaborative transmission of the data payload, and wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a message indicating failure of a link with the third UE for the first UE or the secondary UE; and instruct the first UE and the secondary UE to disassociate from the third UE for collaborative transmission of the data payload. However, Park-B teaches wherein the first UE, the secondary UE, and a third UE are associated with each other for collaborative transmission of the data payload, and wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a message indicating failure of a link with the third UE for the first UE or the secondary UE; and instruct the first UE and the secondary UE to disassociate from the third UE for collaborative transmission of the data payload (Paragraphs 349-352 teaches a Tx UE having established a sidelink link with an Rx UE. When RLF occurs in the sidelink, the RLF is reported to the base station. “That is, when the UE (Tx UE or Rx UE) declares RLF on SL, the UE reports the RLF declaration to the BS, and the BS does not allocate transmission resources to the UE for which the radio link has been broken any longer due to the RLF. Alternatively, when the UE detects RLF on SL, the UE may report the RLF detection to the BS. Upon receipt of the report of the RLF detection from the UE, the BS may discontinue transmission resource allocation (release a resource grant), if transmission resource allocation to the UE is in progress. Alternatively, when the UE declares RLF for SL, the UE does not perform a transmission resource allocation request procedure any longer for pending transmission data. That is, the UE does not transmit an SR or a sidelink BSR to the BS”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the base station of Maaref with the teachings of Park-B in order to detect and mitigate RLF of a UE to UE link . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaref in view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0171899, Seo hereafter) . RE claim 9, Maaref discloses the UE of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Maaref further discloses wherein the UE is further associated with a third UE for collaborative transmission of the data payload to the base station (TUE sends to a plurality of nearby UEs a “cooperation seeking request”, or CSR, message triggered by the network controller. Paragraph 27 discloses the network controller obtains channel quality measurements through, for example a CQI report and thus may choose to instruct the TUE to begin seeking potential CUEs. The TUE compiles the replies to the CSR into a set of potential CUEs and sends this to the network. The network then selects the set of CUEs “based on relatively simple selection criteria such as the content and/or strength of received replies to the CSR message, physical proximity to the TUE, network associations (e.g., being connected to a same network or a different network), or the like.”. Thus the network appears to be aware of the quality of the link between both the network and the TUE as well as the links between the TUE and the potential CUEs in addition to the physical proximity between the TUE and each potential CUE. Figure 1A further shows at least 3 CUEs associated with the TUE) Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the base station, a radio quality measurement report including a radio quality measurement for the UE, a radio quality measurement for the secondary UE, and/or a radio quality measurement for the third UE. However, Seo teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the base station, a radio quality measurement report including a radio quality measurement for the UE, a radio quality measurement for the secondary UE, and/or a radio quality measurement for the third UE (Paragraph 188-195. “the HUE candidates transmit their location information to the eNB”, “if DL massive data which will be transmitted to the TUE occur (S1410), the eNB requests the TUE of measurement report (S1415). The request of measurement report is to request the TUE to measure the HUE candidates for a UE cooperative operation, and may include, but not limited to, information on HUE candidates which are measurement targets.” And “The TUE receives a signal for measurement from the HUE candidates (S1420), and measures the received signal (S1425). The TUE transmits a measurement report to the eNB (S1430). The measurement report includes a measurement result for the HUE 1, and it is assumed that the HUE 1 of the HUE candidates has the most excellent measurement result.“) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Maaref with the teachings of Seo since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (individual measurement and reports for at least three helper UEs) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). RE claim 10, Maaref in view of Seo discloses the UE of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Seo further teaches wherein the radio quality measurement report is transmitted in response to a request, from the base station, for the radio quality measurement report for the UE and one or more UEs with which the UE is associated for the collaborative transmission of the data payload (Paragraph 188-195. “the HUE candidates transmit their location information to the eNB”, “if DL massive data which will be transmitted to the TUE occur (S1410), the eNB requests the TUE of measurement report (S1415). The request of measurement report is to request the TUE to measure the HUE candidates for a UE cooperative operation, and may include, but not limited to, information on HUE candidates which are measurement targets.” And “The TUE receives a signal for measurement from the HUE candidates (S1420), and measures the received signal (S1425). The TUE transmits a measurement report to the eNB (S1430). The measurement report includes a measurement result for the HUE 1, and it is assumed that the HUE 1 of the HUE candidates has the most excellent measurement result.“) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Maaref with the teachings of Seo since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (individual measurement and reports for at least three helper UEs) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maaref in view of Kakadia et al. (US 2015/0281004, Kakadia hereafter) . RE claim 16, Maaref discloses the base station of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that Maaref further discloses determining a data throughput of the first UE or the secondary UE based on the determined link quality or location of the first UE or the secondary UE (TUE sends to a plurality of nearby UEs a “cooperation seeking request”, or CSR, message triggered by the network controller. Paragraph 27 discloses the network controller obtains channel quality measurements through, for example a CQI report and thus may choose to instruct the TUE to begin seeking potential CUEs. The TUE compiles the replies to the CSR into a set of potential CUEs and sends this to the network. The network then selects the set of CUEs “based on relatively simple selection criteria such as the content and/or strength of received replies to the CSR message, physical proximity to the TUE, network associations (e.g., being connected to a same network or a different network), or the like.”. Thus the network appears to be aware of the quality of the link between both the network and the TUE as well as the links between the TUE and the potential CUEs in addition to the physical proximity between the TUE and each potential CUE. Furthermore, Figure 4 and paragraphs 31-35 and 39, discloses potential CUEs ranked based on estimated long term end-to-end capacity. Two example equations, one for half-duplex mode and the other for full-duplex mode, are further disclosed as a function of link quality metrics Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein to instruct the first UE or the secondary UE to associate with the secondary UE or the first UE, the processor is further configured to: analyze a service level agreement of the first UE or the secondary UE for a minimum data throughput. However, Kakadia teaches analyzing a service level agreement of the first UE or the secondary UE for a minimum data throughput (Paragraphs 10-12, Network Management System receives and analyzes subscriber device SLAs to determine required QoS levels to which the subscribers have subscribed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the base station of Maaref with the teachings of Kakadia in order to ensure a required level of QoS is met per subscriber. RE claim 17, Maaref discloses the base station of claim 15 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from a core network, configuration information to instruct the first UE or the secondary UE to associate with or disassociate from the secondary UE or the first UE. However, Kakadia teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from a core network, configuration information to instruct the first UE or the secondary UE to associate with or disassociate from the secondary UE or the first UE (Paragraphs 10-12, Network Management System receives and analyzes subscriber device SLAs to determine required QoS levels to which the subscribers have subscribed. Figure 3 shows BS communicating with a core network via backhaul network, the core network includes the NMS. The base station is under the control of the core network). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the base station of Maaref with the teachings of Kakadia since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). RE claim 20, Maaref discloses the base station of claim 15 as set forth above. Maaref does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from a core network, configuration information for each of the first UE and the secondary UE for an association of the first UE and the secondary UE for collaborative transmission of the data payload; and transmit, to the first UE or the secondary UE, the received configuration information for the collaborative transmission of the data payload. However, Kakadia teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from a core network, configuration information for each of the first UE and the secondary UE for an association of the first UE and the secondary UE for collaborative transmission of the data payload; and transmit, to the first UE or the secondary UE, the received configuration information for the collaborative transmission of the data payload (Paragraphs 10-12, Network Management System receives and analyzes subscriber device SLAs to determine required QoS levels to which the subscribers have subscribed. Figure 3 shows BS communicating with a core network via backhaul network, the core network includes the NMS. The base station is under the control of the core network). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the base station of Maaref with the teachings of Kakadia since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST. 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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. /James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 2 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 3 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 4 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 5 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 6 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 7 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 8 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 9 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 10 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 11 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 12 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 13 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 14 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 15 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 16 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 17 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 18 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 19 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 20 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 21 Art Unit: 2461 Application/Control Number: 18/711,024 Page 22 Art Unit: 2461
Prosecution Insights