CTNF 18/718,379 CTNF 81816 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 06/10/2024. Claims 16-35 are pending for Examination. Claims 1-15 were cancelled by preliminary amendment. 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. Information Disclosure Statements The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on: 06/10/2024 and 05/12/2025 are determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS’ are being considered by the Examiner. Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other ( i.e., A or B), but not both ( i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations. Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M , 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131. 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. 07-20-02-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 Claims 16-17, 19-23, 25-27, 29-3 3, and 35 are rejected under 35 U .S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2024/0049 104 A1, Sun et al. (hereinafter “ Sun ”) in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0388850 A1, Pan et al. (hereinafter “ Pan ”). With respect to cla im 16 , Sun teaches: A method performed by a relay user equipment (UE) associated with a UE to UE (U2U) in a wireless communication system (sidelink relay UE 104 can perform relaying between sidelink UEs 106 and 108 of Fig. 3B; See also relay 104/702 of Figs. 5A-B and 7) , the method comprising: receiving, from a first UE associated with the U2U, a first message including quality of service (QoS) information for end-to-end QoS information between the first UE and a second UE associated with the U2U (paras. [0003], [0057]-[0060], and [0082]; Figs. 3B and 5A-B —relay UE 104 can receive a E2E QoS requirement message 508 from remote UE 106 for performing relayed sidelink communication between remote UE106 and target UE 108, as depicted in Fig. 5A) ; performing a QoS split based on the QoS information for end-to-end QoS information (paras. [0003], [0020], [0026]-[0029], [0057]-[0060], and [0082]-[0092]; steps 510-518 and 522-526 of Figs. 5A-B —a relay UE 104 can determine an E2E QoS requirement and enforce a QoS split between first and second hops of its a relayed SL communication based on received E2E QoS information and measured first and second hop link conditions) ; and transmitting, to the first UE, a second message including split QoS information (paras. [0003], [0026]-[0029], and [0086]-[0087]; and Fig. 5A —the relay UE 104 can send remote UE 106 a message with the split QoS requirement of the first hop, as depicted in step 518 of Fig. 5A) , wherein the split QoS information includes a first packet delay budget (PDB) value for a first hop between the first UE and the relay UE (paras. [0020]-[0021], [0026]-[0028], [0057]-[0060], and [0087]-[0089] —the split QoS requirement information sent to the remote UD 106 can include a PDB corresponding to the link between the remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104) . However, Sun does not explicitly teach: the relay UE being a layer 2 (L2) U2U relay. Pan does teach a relay UE being a L2 U2U relay (paras. [0004], [0070], and [0117]; and Figs 1-2 —relay UE 220 can operate in Layer 2 (L2) when performing sidelink (PC5) QoS flow relay signaling, i.e., L3 is not in the relay protocol stack, between UEs 210 and 230, as is clearly depicted in inter-device, protocol-layer stacks of Fig. 2 —in this regard, the relay UE may communicate with first and second SL UEs via L2 PC5/RLC messaging) . It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun’s U2U relaying to be associated with L2 U2U relaying, as taught by Pan . The motivation for doing so would have been to perform simplified L2 sidelink relay configuration, as recognized by Pan (paras. [0004], [0070], and [0117]; and Figs 1-2) . With respect to claim 17 , Sun in view of Pan teaches: The method of claim 16, wherein the first PDB value and a second PDB value for a second hop between the relay UE and the second UE are decided by the relay UE (Sun: paras. [0027]-[0029], [0035], [0050]-[0051], and [0058]-[0059]; and Table 1 —first and second PDB values, for a first hop and a second hop of the relayed sidelink/U2U communication, can be decided at a relay UE according to priority rules, a pre-configured splitting table, measured link conditions, etc.) . With respect to claim 19 , Sun in view of Pan teaches the method of claim 16 However, Sun does not explicitly teach: transmitting, to the second UE, a third message including a radio link control (RLC) layer configuration information for the L2 U2U. Pan does teach: transmitting, to a second UE, a message including a radio link control (RLC) layer configuration information for the L2 U2U (paras. [0070]-[0071] and [0086]-[0087]; and Figs. 3-7 —a Relay UE can transmit a message to a second UE, i.e., a destination UE, that includes RLC configuration information, as depicted in Figs. 3-7 for L2 sidelink —the Examiner notes that the RLC layer is a L2 (data-link) layer of the protocol stack) . It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun’s U2U relaying to be associated with L2 U2U relaying with RLC message configuration, as taught by Pan . The motivation for doing so would have been to perform simplified L2 sidelink relay configuration via RLC messaging, as recognized by Pan (paras. [0070]-[0071] and [0086]-[0087]; and Figs. 3-7) . With respect to claim 20 , this claim recites similar features to independent claim 16, except claim 20 is written from the perspective of the first UE, as opposed to the relay UE. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 16. With respect to claim 21 , Sun in view of Pan teaches the method of claim 20. However, Sun does not explicitly teach a first UE: deriving configuration information associated with the first hop between the first UE and the relay UE based on the split QoS information, wherein the configuration information is determined based on a system information block, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message or a pre-configuration. Pan does teach: deriving configuration information associated with the first hop between the first UE and the relay UE based on the split QoS information (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0057], [0073], [0108], and [0116]-[0117]; S301 of Fig. 3 —a first UE can derive RLC configuration information corresponding to SL1’s, i.e., the first hop, QoS split, for sending to the relay UE, as depicted in S301) , wherein the configuration information is determined based on a system information block, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message or a pre-configuration (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0057], [0073], [0108], and [0116]-[0117]; S301 of Fig. 3 —the first UE can derive and send the relay UE RLC configuration information corresponding to SL1, determined based at least in part on SLRB pre-configuration, i.e., SLRB configuration from a BS, or RRC reconfiguration —the alternative term “ or ” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single alternative claim limitation, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section) . It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun’s U2U relaying to be associated with L2 U2U relaying with RLC message pre/configuration, as taught by Pan . The motivation for doing so would have been to perform simplified L2 sidelink relay pre/configuration via RLC messaging, as recognized by Pan (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0057], [0073], [0108], and [0116]-[0117]; S301 of Fig. 3) . With respect to claim 22 , Sun in view of Pan teaches the method of claim 21. However, Sun does not explicitly teach: wherein the configuration information corresponds to radio link control (RLC) layer configuration information, and wherein RLC layer configuration information for a second hop between the relay UE and the second UE is derived by the relay UE. Pan does teach: wherein the configuration information corresponds to radio link control (RLC) layer configuration information (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0077]-[0082], and [0123]-[0132]; S302 of Fig. 3 —a relay UE can derive RLC configuration information corresponding to SL2, i.e., the second hop, for sending to the destination UE, as depicted in S302) , and wherein RLC layer configuration information for a second hop between the relay UE and the second UE is derived by the relay UE (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0077]-[0082], and [0123]-[0132]; S301 of Fig. 3 — a relay UE derived RLC configuration information corresponds to SL2, i.e., the second hop, between the relay UE and the destination UE, as depicted in S302 . It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun’s U2U relaying to be associated with L2 U2U relaying with RLC message configuration, as taught by Pan . The motivation for doing so would have been to perform simplified L2 sidelink relay configuration via RLC messaging, as recognized by Pan (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0077]-[0082], and [0123]-[0132]; S301 of Fig. 3) . With respect to claim 23 , Sun in view of Pan teaches the method of claim 20. However, Sun does not explicitly teach: transmitting, to the second UE, an RRC reconfiguration sidelink message including configuration information for the L2 U2U. Pan does teach: transmitting, to the second UE, an RRC reconfiguration sidelink message including configuration information for the L2 U2U (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0113], [0117], and [0214]; and Figs. 3-7 —the first UE can send an RRC Reconfiguration message to the second UE via L2 RLC SL messaging, i.e., via first or third messaged) . It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun’s U2U relaying to be associated with L2 U2U relaying via RLC messaging with an RRC Reconfiguration, as taught by Pan . The motivation for doing so would have been to perform L2 sidelink RRC Reconfiguration via relayed RLC messaging, as recognized by Pan (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0113], [0117], and [0214]; and Figs. 3-7) . With respect to claim 25 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 17. As such, claim 25 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 17. With respect to claim 26 , this claim recites similar features to independent claim 16, except claim 26 is directed to a relay UE with a transceiver and a controller (Sun: paras. [0036]-[0046]; and relay UE 104/200 w/transceiver 220 and processor 210 of Figs. 1-2) . As such, claim 26 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 16. With respect to claim 27 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 17. As such, claim 27 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 17. With respect to claim 29 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 19. As such, claim 29 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 19. With respect to claim 30 , this claim recites similar features to independent claim 20, except claim 30 is directed to a first UE with a transceiver and a controller (Sun: paras. [0036]-[0046]; and remote UE 106/200 w/transceiver 220 and processor 210 of Figs. 1-2) . As such, claim 30 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 20. With respect to claim 31 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 21. As such, claim 31 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 21. With respect to claim 32 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 22. As such, claim 32 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 22. With respect to claim 33 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 23. As such, claim 33 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 23. With respect to claim 35 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 25. As such, claim 35 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 25 . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 18, 2 4, 28, and 34 are reje cted under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun i n view of Pan , in further view of US Patent 12,490,335 B2, Freda et al. (hereinafter “ Freda ”). With respect to claim 18 , Sun in view of Pan teaches the method of claim 16. However, Sun does not explicitly teach: wherein its first message further includes a destination L2 identity corresponding to the second UE, an identifier for the QoS information for end-to-end QoS information and QoS profile, and wherein the second message further includes the identifier for the QoS information for end-to-end QoS information. Pan does teach: a first message including a destination L2 identity corresponding to the second UE, an identifier for the QoS information for end-to-end QoS information and a QoS profile; and (Pan: paras. [0008]-[0009], [0014]-[0015], [0022], [0099], and [0121]-[0132] —a first UE can send a E2E QoS requirement message to a relay UE, which includes an identifier of a destination UE, an identifier that is a PC5 quality of service flow identifier (PFI), which the Examiner interprets to correspond to a QoS profile, and an identifier that identifies a PC5 5G QoS identifier (PQI), at para. [0139], which the Examiner interprets to be equivalent to a QoS profile —the Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure describes that “the PQI and PC5 QoS profiles may be end-to-end QoS information or per-hop PC5 QoS information,” at para. [0160] (of PG Pub). Thus, it is reasonable to interpret a QoS Profile to correspond to a particular service flow, per-hop or end-to-end, i.e., identified via PFI) , and a second message including the identifier for the QoS information for end-to-end QoS information (Pan: paras. [0139] —a relay UE can send a destination UE a relayed message with its determined E2E QoS information relating to both a first SL1 hop and a second SL2 hop, which includes a PQI ID corresponding to E2E service flow QoS information) . It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun’s U2U relaying to be associated with service-flow partitioned U2U relaying, as taught by Pan . The motivation for doing so would have been to perform simplified, per-flow sidelink relay configuration/communication, as recognized by Pan (paras. [0008]-[0009], [0014]-[0015], [0022], [0099], [0121]-[0132], and [0139]) . However, Sun in view of Pan does not explicitly teach: a destination identity being an L2 destination ID. Freda does teach: a destination identity being an L2 destination ID (col. 2, lines 22-67, col. 19, ln. 63 to col. 20, ln. 64; and Figs. 4 and 6-7 —a L2 Relay WTRUs can receive an L2 Dest ID from a Source WTRU for relaying QoS configuration and data per hop to a the Destination WTRU) . It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun in view of Pan’s destination ID of its second UE being an L2 destination ID, as taught by Freda . The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly designate the destination ID as a L2 destination ID, as recognized by Freda (col. 2, lines 22-67, col. 19, ln. 63 to col. 20, ln. 64; and Figs. 4 and 6-7) . With respect to claim 24 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 18. As such, claim 24 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan and Freda , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 18. With respect to claim 28 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 18. As such, claim 28 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan and Freda , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 18. With respect to claim 34 , this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 24. As such, claim 34 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Pan and Freda , for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 24 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows: US PG Pub 2021/0410215 A1, Kuo et al : teaches sidelink (SL) radio bearer establishment/relaying solutions including per-link QoS flow profiles for Mode 2 SL operations. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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. /Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418 /Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 2 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 3 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 4 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 5 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 6 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 7 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 8 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 9 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 10 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 11 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 12 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 13 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 14 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 15 Art Unit: 2418 Application/Control Number: 18/718,379 Page 16 Art Unit: 2418
Prosecution Insights