Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0013103, filed on 01/31/2023 and KR 10-2023-0017006, filed on 02/08/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the elements of, does not reasonably provide enablement for "a Mode-1 . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. A “Mode-1” UE is not inherently known in the state of the art and is only defined in ¶0033 of the specification which states “The source remote UE may be a Mode-1 UE” without any further definition. Without further definition, Examiner is unable to fully understand the definition of a “Mode-1 UE” and as such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Examiner is interpreting “Mode-1” as a base functioning UE for the purposes of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 12 claims “a computer readable non-volatile storage medium” instead of a “computer readable non-transitory storage medium”. Any computer storage medium not defined as “non-transitory” is viewed per se as claiming a software element, which falls beyond the statutory requirement outlined in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-4, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong, Marcus (20260143539 A1), hereinafter Wong.
Re. Claims 1 and 11, Wong teaches a source remote user equipment (UE) in UE-to-UE relay in a wireless communication system, the resource remote UE comprising: at least one processor (Fig 3); and at least one computer memory operably connectable to the at least one processor and configured to store instructions (¶0030 - the two UEs 30, 30′ may each include a memory operatively storing a variety of program and information to operate a connected processor) that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, wherein the operations comprise: establishing, by the source remote UE, a PC5 link with a relay UE (¶0059 - UE1 and UE2 establish connection (e.g., PC5 connection) with the UE-to-UE relay respectively); establishing, by the source remote UE, an end-to-end link with a target remote UE via the relay UE (¶0059 - In the process of establishing PC5 connection, either the UE-to-UE relay communicates to UE1 and UE2 respectively that end-to-end security is to be used or UE1 and UE2 communicate to the UE-to-UE relay that end-to-end security is used); receiving, by the source remote UE, information about a split quality of service (QoS) from the relay UE (¶0058 - The selected relay would be a UE-to-UE relay that can provide for both UE1 and UE2 better or best communication quality (e.g., reference signal received power (RSRP) or quality of service (QOS))); and reporting, by the source remote UE, the information about the split QoS received from the relay UE and an end-to-end QoS related to the information about the split QoS to a serving base station (BS) of the source remote UE (¶0031 - The relay 10 serves as an intermediary device that facilitates the transmission of signals in downlink and uplink directions between the base station and the user equipment(s), especially in scenarios where direct communication is challenging).
Re. Claim 12, Claim 12 is structurally similar to that of Claims 1 and 11 and as such is rejected under the same grounds. Additionally, Claim 12 includes a “computer-readable non-volatile storage medium”, which Wong further discloses (¶0031 - The memory may include a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a flash memory, a memory card, a storage medium, other storage devices, and/or any combination of the memory and storage devices.)
Re. Claim 2, Wong teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Wong further teaches wherein the source remote UE is a Mode-1 UE (¶0024 - Each UE and UE-to-UE relay will need to establish secure sidelink (or PC5) connectivity individually before the UEs can establish secure connectivity with each other via the UE-to-UE relay).
Re. Claim 3, Wong teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Wong further teaches wherein the end-to-end QoS is a QoS between the source remote UE and the target remote UE (¶0058 - The selected relay would be a UE-to-UE relay that can provide for both UE1 and UE2 better or best communication quality (e.g., reference signal received power (RSRP) or quality of service (QOS))).
Re. Claim 4, Wong teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Wong further teaches wherein the split QoS is a QoS between the source remote UE and the relay UE (¶0042 - the selected relay would be a UE-to-UE relay node that can provide for both the first UE and the second UE better or best communication quality).
Re. Claim 7, Wong teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Wong further teaches wherein the reporting is performed through sidelink UE information (SUI) (¶0024 - Each UE and UE-to-UE relay will need to establish secure sidelink (or PC5) connectivity individually before the UEs can establish secure connectivity with each other via the UE-to-UE relay).
Re. Claim 8, Wong teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Wong further teaches wherein the information about the split QoS is determined by the relay UE (¶0082 - The selected relay would be a UE-to-UE relay that can provide for both UE1 and UE2 better or best communication quality (e.g., reference signal received power (RSRP) or quality of service (QoS))).
Re. Claim 9, Wong teaches Claim 8.
Additionally, Wong further teaches wherein the split QoS is used for resource selection of the source remote UE (¶0082 - If there are multiple UE-to-UE relays in the area, UE1 and UE2 select the relay that can provide relay service to them. The selected relay would be a UE-to-UE relay that can provide for both UE1 and UE2 better or best communication quality (e.g., reference signal received power (RSRP) or quality of service (QoS))).
Re. Claim 10, Wong teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Wong further teaches wherein the end-to-end QoS is determined by a higher layer of the source remote UE (Fig. 1, ¶0005 - Link #3 is protected at higher layer (e.g., application layer) between UE #1 and UE #2. ¶0006 - neither the UE nor the network is aware that the UE's communication with the other UE using the higher layer application. This means that there is encryption between the two UEs via the upper layer application and for each UE individually with the network via the lower layer security).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Wang et al. (EP 4106410 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Re. Claim 5, Wong teaches Claim 1.
However, Wong does not expressly teach wherein the end-to-end QoS information is used to configure a data radio bearer (DRB) between the source remote UE and the target remote UE
Yet, Wang explicitly teaches wherein the end-to-end QoS information is used to configure a data radio bearer (DRB) between the source remote UE and the target remote UE (Pg. 7, Paragraph 8 - If multiple Uu SRBs or Uu DRBs of the remote UE can be mapped to the same PC5 RLC bearer, the current data packet belongs to which Uu SRB or Uu DRB of the remote UE can be indicated by the adaptation layer between the remote UE and the relay UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Wang to the teaching of Wong. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission effectiveness as Wang provides that the end-to-end information is used to configure a DRB (Pg. 7, Paragraph 8, Wang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Pan; Li-Te (2022/0361268), hereinafter Pan.
Re. Claim 6, Wong teaches Claim 1.
However, Wong does not expressly teach wherein the information about the split QoS is related to one end-to-end QoS among a plurality of end-to-end QoSs between the source remote UE and the target remote UE
Yet, Pan explicitly teaches wherein the information about the split QoS is related to one end-to-end QoS among a plurality of end-to-end QoSs between the source remote UE and the target remote UE (¶0193 - After receiving the service data or request from the upper layers, the initiating UE shall derive the PC5 QoS parameters and assign the PQFI(s) for the PC5 QoS flows(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Pan to the teaching of Wong. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission effectiveness as Pan provides that the split QoS is related to the end-to-end QoS (¶0193, Pan). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karampatsis (20260164479) - ¶0087-0128
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights