DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted August 17, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the “first concern” of the previously set forth rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the claims have been amended to recite “[configuration to] receive an indication identifying a rendering source in a Layer 3 multipath relay configuration” (claim 1, lines 6-7). Applicant states that this “configuration” refers to “an arrangement of communication paths” (Remarks, pp. 12-13). Examiner agrees that it is now clear the claim is stating that the “source” is in a network arrangement (i.e. a “Layer 3 multipath relay [network arrangement]”). As such, the first part of the said rejection is overcome and/or withdrawn.
However, the claims still remain rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear if or how the environment places limitation on the respective device. Applicant states “each claim recites the interface or interfaces of the claimed apparatus as communications of that apparatus [sic]” (Remarks, p. 13; referring to the “second concern”), perhaps implying that the interfaces are included within the apparatus. Examiner respectfully notes that each of the independent claims specify that the “configuration [i.e. network arrangement] is associated with” the said interfaces, not that the claimed apparatuses include the interfaces. Indeed, it is not possible for some of the interfaces to be comprised within each apparatus. For instance, a “network node” does not include a “sidelink interface”; a UE does not include two Uu interfaces, etc. Applicant continues, stating the interfaces “define the environment in which the claimed apparatus operates” (Id.). For this reason, it is unclear if or how the environment places limitation on the respective device.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art of record have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 14, 20, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20: These claims are directed to devices – an “anchor UE,” a “network node,” and a “companion UE,” respectively. Each of these devices is associated with a network arrangement (i.e. a “Layer 3 multipath relay configuration”). However, it is unclear if or how the environment places limitation on the respective device. For purposes of examination, each of these claims is interpreted as a system that includes the anchor UE, companion UE, and network node, with respective interfaces.
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 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2024/0172084 A1 (hereinafter “Xu`084”), alternatively in view of the non-patent literature document titled UE Aggregation (hereinafter “RWS-210451”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0314379 A1 (hereinafter “Sodagar”).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20: Xu`084 teaches an anchor user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to:
receive an indication identifying a rendering source in a Layer 3 multipath relay configuration, wherein the Layer 3 multipath relay configuration is associated with: a first Uu interface for communication with a network node, a sidelink interface for communication with a companion UE; and a second Uu interface for communication between the network node and the companion UE, (see, e.g., figure 3-6, [0131], [0259]-[0261], [0428], [0429], [0437], [0448]; also reference claims 1, 5; note reception of configuration information for multi-path relaying of rendered video data from a source) and
communicate with one or more of the network node or the companion UE via the Layer 3 multipath relay and in accordance with the indication (see, e.g., figure 3-6, [0131], [0259]-[0261], [0428], [0429], [0437], [0448]; also reference claims 1, 5; the configuration leads to multipath communication).
Xu`084 does not explicitly state the terms “anchor UE,” “companion UE,” and/or wherein the source is identified. To the extent these features are not inherent to the system of Xu`084, they are nevertheless taught in RWS-210451 (see, e.g., pp. 1-3; note data from a source could be dispatched at an anchor and routed with a cooperative UE; note also overlapping teachings with respect to receiving configuration parameters for multi-path communication). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of RWS-210451, such as the signaling and/or configuration functionality, within the system of Xu`084, in order to improve flexibility and reliability for data transmission.
Xu alternatively modified by RWS-210451 does not explicitly state “wherein the rendering source is one of the network node, the companion UE, or the anchor UE” and “wherein the rendering source is configured to perform rendering, on behalf of the anchor UE, wherein the rendering comprises one or more processes for generating image or video content that is offloaded from the anchor UE to the rendering source, and wherein the communication includes receiving, from the rendering source and via the Layer 3 multipath relay configuration, the image or video content generated by the rendering source.” However, these features are taught by Sodagar (see, e.g., figures 3-5, [0067], [0069], [0074], [0122], [0136], reference claim 8 on p. 11; note rendering sources for video content are updated and identified). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application to incorporate features from the system of Sodagar, such as the split rendering and/or signaling functionality, within the system of Xu alternatively modified by RWS-210451, in order to increase workflow efficiency.
The rationale set forth above regarding the anchor user equipment of claim 1 is applicable to network node and companion user equipment of claims 14 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 15: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar further teaches wherein the indication for identifying the rendering source includes a configuration for identifying the rendering source in accordance with one or more of a first link condition associated with the first Uu interface, a second link condition associated with the second Uu interface, or a third link condition associated with the sidelink interface (see, e.g., Xu`084: [0171], [0275], [0357]; and/or RWS-210451 p. 2; note path quality consideration). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the anchor user equipment of claim 2 is applicable to network node of claim 15.
Regarding claim 4: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar further teaches wherein the indication identifying the rendering source includes a configuration for measuring one or more of a first communication link associated with the first Uu interface, a second communication link associated with the second Uu interface, or a third communication link associated with the sidelink interface (see, e.g., Xu`084: [0171], [0192], [0255], [0275], [0357]; and/or RWS-210451 p. 2; note path quality consideration). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
Regarding claim 6: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar further teaches wherein the indication identifying the rendering source includes a configuration for selecting one or more of the network node, the companion UE, or the anchor UE as the rendering source in accordance with one or more of a measurement of a first communication link, a measurement of a second communication link, or a measurement of a third communication link (see, e.g., Xu`084: [0056], [0194], [0255], [0325], [0335]; and/or RWS-210451 see, e.g., pp. 2; note path quality consideration). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar further teaches wherein the indication for selecting one or more of the network node, the companion UE, or the anchor UE as the rendering source includes an indication or configuration for comparing, to a threshold, one or more of the measurement of the first communication link, the measurement of the second communication link, or the measurement of the third communication link (see, e.g., Xu`084: [0056], [0194], [0255], [0325], [0335]; and/or RWS-210451 see, e.g., pp. 2; note path quality consideration). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
10. Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu`084, alternatively in view of RWS-210451, in further view of Sodagar, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2026/0246705 A1 (hereinafter “Pateromichelakis”).
Regarding claims 3 and 16: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar further teaches wherein the indication identifying the rendering source includes a configuration for identifying one or more of the network node, the companion UE, or the anchor UE as the rendering source (see, e.g., Xu`084: [0131], [0259]-[0261], [0428], [0429], [0437], [0448]; and/or RWS-210451 see, e.g., pp. 1-3), but does not explicitly state wherein the image or video content is associated with an extended reality application. However, this feature is taught by Pateromichelakis (see, e.g., [0083]-[0091]; note also overlapping teaching with respect to split rendering and source determination [0112]-[0115], [0301]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application to incorporate features from the system of Pateromichelakis, such as the split rendering and/or signaling functionality, within the system of Xu modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar, in order to gauge link metrics for updating processing distribution.
The rationale set forth above regarding the anchor user equipment of claim 3 is applicable to network node of claim 16.
11. Claims 5, 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu`084, alternatively in view of RWS-210451, in further view of Sodagar, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0184860 A1 (hereinafter “Xu`860”).
Regarding claim 5: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar further teaches measuring latency and/or signal strength, but does not explicitly state measuring SINR, and therefore does not explicitly state “wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to measure one or more of the first communication link, the second communication link, or the third communication link, are configured to cause the UE to measure one or more of a latency or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise (SINR) of one or more of the first communication link, the second communication link, or the third communication link.” However, this feature is taught by Xu`860 (see, e.g., [0183], [0274]-[0275]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Xu`860, such as the signaling and/or analysis functionality, within the system of Xu`084 alternatively modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar, in order to prioritize flows.
Regarding claims 8 and 17: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar substantially teaches the UE set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to receive a priority associated with identifying the rendering source. However, this feature is taught by Xu`860 (see, e.g., [0191]-[0197]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Xu`860, such as the signaling and/or analysis functionality, within the system of Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar in order to prioritize flows.
The rationale set forth above regarding the anchor user equipment of claim 8 is applicable to network node of claim 17.
Regarding claim 9: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451, Sodagar, and Xu`860 further teaches wherein the priority is associated with one or more of a capability of the network node, a capability of the companion UE, or a capability of the anchor UE (see, e.g., Xu`860 [0191]-[0197]; also Xu`084: [0171], [0192], [0255], [0275], [0357]; and/or RWS-210451 p. 2; note path quality consideration). The motivations for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 8 are applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451, Sodagar, and Xu`860 further teaches wherein the indication or configuration for identifying the rendering source includes an indication or configuration for identifying the rendering source in accordance with the priority and one or more of a measurement of a first communication link, a measurement of a second communication link, or a measurement of a third communication link (see, e.g., Xu`860 [0191]-[0197]; also Xu`084: [0171], [0192], [0255], [0275], [0357]; and/or RWS-210451 p. 2; note path quality consideration). The motivations for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 8 are applicable to claim 10.
12. Claims 11-13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu`084, alternatively in view of RWS-210451, in further view of Sodagar, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0400643 A1 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claims 11 and 18: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive the indication or configuration for identifying the rendering source, are configured to cause the UE to receive an indication identifying the rendering source via one or more of downlink control information, medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) signaling, or radio resource control signaling (see, e.g., Xu`084: [0128], [0192], [0255]).
Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar does not explicitly state receiving via DCI, MAC-CE, and RRC signaling. To the extent this feature is not inherent to Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar (by virtue of the RRC signaling taught therein and/or the alternative claim language), these features are nevertheless taught in Yang (see, e.g., figures 5, 9, [0063], [0096], [0133]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Yang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar, in order to transmit control information.
The rationale set forth above regarding the anchor user equipment of claim 11 is applicable to network node of claim 18.
Regarding claims 12 and 19: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to transmit, to one or more of the companion UE or the network node, an indication of a selection of the rendering source (see, e.g., Xu`084: [0056], [0194], [0255], [0325], [0335]; and/or RWS-210451 see, e.g., pp. 2). To the extent the feature of UE indication transmission is not inherent to Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 (by virtue of the multi-path setup), this feature is nevertheless taught in Yang (see, e.g., figures 5, 9, [0063], [0096], [0133]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Yang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Sodagar, in order to transmit control information.
The rationale set forth above regarding the anchor user equipment of claim 12 is applicable to network node of claim 19.
Regarding claim 13: Xu`084 modified by RWS-210451 and Yang further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the indication of the selection of the rendering source, are configured to cause the UE to transmit the indication of the selection of the rendering source via one or more of uplink assistance information or medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) signaling (see, e.g., Yang figures 5, 9, [0063], [0096], [0133]). The motivations for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 12 are applicable to claim 13.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights