DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 14-15, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FU, (2023/0209618).
Regarding claim 1: FU teaches a method performed by a first device in a wireless communication system [¶0153 teaches: a communication system includes a telecommunication network 710, such as a 3GPP-type cellular network, which comprises an access network 711, such as a radio access network, and a core network 714. The access network 711 comprises a plurality of base stations 712a, 712b, 712c, such as NBs, eNBs, gNBs or other types of wireless access points], the method comprising: establishing a first unicast link with a second device; establishing a second unicast link with a third device [¶0105 teaches: mapping between application user/layer IDs and PC5 unicast links.]; and performing communication with at least one of the second device and the third device [¶0129 teaches: In the case that the third device establishes the respective link connections with the first device and the second device, the first device and the second device may communicate with each other via the third device. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the third device may forward data between the first device and the second device, according to at least one of the IP address of the first device and an IP address of the second device., based on a common identity (ID) related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link [¶0129 teaches: the third device may forward data between the first device and the second device, according to at least one of the IP address of the first device and an IP address of the second device], wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is configured for the first device [¶0105 teaches: a solution for supporting Layer-3 UE-to-UE relay. In accordance with some exemplary embodiments, when a remote UE establishes a connection with a relay UE (i.e. first device), the remote UE may use its link-local IPv6 address as its IP address and inform this IP address to the relay UE. The relay UE may maintain a mapping between link-local IPv6 addresses and UE IDs (e.g. application layer IDs, etc.), and optionally a mapping between application user/layer IDs and PC5 unicast links.].
Regarding claim 2: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, FU teaches wherein information for a reference signal commonly used for the first unicast link and the second unicast link is transmitted through the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link [¶0106 teaches: a remote UE may establish a unicast link to a relay UE for communicating with other remote UEs which may connect to that relay UE].
Regarding claim 4: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, FU teaches wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is a layer-2 common ID between at least one of a groupcast or a broadcast [¶0084 teaches: Relay may listen on a configured Layer-2 ID].
Regarding claim 6: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, FU teaches wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is transmitted via at least one of sidelink control information (SCI), a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) message, or PC5-signaling (signaling) message [¶0082 teaches: the PC5 unicast link 1 in FIG. 1 can be identified by the pair of L2 ID1 (e.g. corresponding to application layer ID1) and L2 ID2 (e.g. corresponding to application layer ID2)].
Regarding claim 8: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, FU teaches wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is configured for at least one of the first device, the second device, or the third device by a base station [¶0115 teaches: the first device may be configured to communicate with a network node such as a base station, e.g. directly or via a relay.].
Regarding claim 9: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, FU teaches wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is transmitted through at least one of a groupcast or a broadcast [¶0078 teaches: 0078] Wireless communication networks are widely deployed to provide various telecommunication services such as voice, video, data, messaging and broadcasts.].
Regarding claim 14: the claim is merely a first device adapted to perform wireless communication as recited in the limitations of claim 1. FU teaches a first device. [the first device may be applicable for direct device-to-device communication between the first device and a second device via a third device, Abstract]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 15: the claim is merely a processing device adapted to control a first device, the first device first device adapted to perform wireless communication as recited in the limitations of claim 1. FU teaches a processor [The apparatus may comprise one or more processors and one or more memories storing computer program codes. The one or more memories and the computer program codes may be configured to, with the one or more processors, cause the apparatus at least to perform any step of the method according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, ¶0016]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 23: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, FU teaches wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is a layer-2 common ID between at least one of a groupcast or a broadcast. [¶0084 teaches: Relay may listen on a configured Layer-2 ID].
Regarding claim 25: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, FU teaches wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is transmitted via at least one of sidelink control information (SCI), a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) message, or PC5-signaling (signaling) message [¶0082 teaches: the PC5 unicast link 1 in FIG. 1 can be identified by the pair of L2 ID1 (e.g. corresponding to application layer ID1) and L2 ID2 (e.g. corresponding to application layer ID2)].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 12-13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FU in view of CHENG et al., (US 2023/0209618).
Regarding claim 5: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, FU does not explicitly teach wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is a layer-1 common ID between at least one of a groupcast or a broadcast.
In a related field of endeavor, CHENG teaches wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is a layer-1 common ID between at least one of a groupcast or a broadcast [¶0108 teaches: The transmitter 414 and the receiver 412 implement Layer-1 functionality associated with various signal processing functions].
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate CHENG’s teaching of Layer-1 functionality into FU’s method performed by a first device in a wireless communication system for the benefit, as taught by CHENG, of security protection at a link level. [CHENG, ¶0108]
Regarding claim 12: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, FU does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first unicast link or the second unicast link is established based on a direct communication request (DCR) message transmitted from the first device.
In a related field of endeavor, CHENG teaches wherein at least one of the first unicast link or the second unicast link is established based on a direct communication request (DCR) message transmitted from the first device [¶0142 teaches: a Direct Communication Request message sent in association with (4b) can be configured to indicate that the second unicast link is to be associated with (e.g., bound to) the first unicast link (e.g., with the same Application Layer ID).
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 5. [See teaching above]
Regarding claim 13: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 12.
However, FU does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one of the first unicast link or the second unicast link is established based on a direct communication accept (DCA) message received from at least one of the second device or the third device.
In a related field of endeavor, CHENG teaches wherein the at least one of the first unicast link or the second unicast link is established based on a direct communication accept (DCA) message received from at least one of the second device or the third device [¶0140 teaches: UE B transmits a Direct Communication Accept message (unicast) to UE A to establish a first unicast link. At (6), UEs A and B exchange V2X service data over the first unicast link.].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 5. [See teaching above]
Regarding claim 24: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 21.
However, FU does not explicitly teach wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is a layer-1 common ID between at least one of a groupcast or a broadcast.
In a related field of endeavor, CHENG teaches wherein the common ID related to the first unicast link and the second unicast link is a layer-1 common ID between at least one of a groupcast or a broadcast [¶0108 teaches: The transmitter 414 and the receiver 412 implement Layer-1 functionality associated with various signal processing functions].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 5. [See teaching above]
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FU in view of FREDA et al., (From IDS: US 2021/0410129).
Regarding claim 10: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 2.
However, FU does not explicitly teach wherein the information for the reference signal commonly used for the first unicast link and the second unicast link includes resource configuration information for a reference signal for a beam.
In a related field of endeavor, FREDA teaches wherein the information for the reference signal commonly used for the first unicast link and the second unicast link includes resource configuration information for a reference signal for a beam [¶0233 teaches: a configuration of the reference signal channel/transmission by one or more WTRUs associated with the unicast and/or multicast link (e.g., a minimum/maximum RS transmission power, time, frequency, and/or beam resources for transmission of the RS signal, RS signal sequence, etc.)].
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FREDA’s teaching of resource configuration information into FU’s method performed by a first device in a wireless communication system for the benefit, as taught by FREDA, performing high-level security functions, such as user authentication. [FREDA, ¶0032]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 11 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular, BYUN et al., (US 2023/0007444) teaches switching between unicast and multicast by considering degraded user experience in a wireless communication system;
XU et al., (US 2022/0150997) teaches a first apparatus establishing a first radio link control RLC entity and a second RLC entity, where the first RLC entity and the second RLC entity are associated with a first packet data convergence protocol PDCP entity. The first apparatus sends first data through the first RLC entity and/or the second RLC entity. The first RLC entity corresponds to a unicast transmission mode, and the second RLC entity corresponds to a multicast transmission mode.; and
PATIL et al., (US 2017/0070343) teaches unicast key management across neighbor aware network data link groups.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights