DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to an application filed on July 11, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Relevant Technical Information Submittal Requirement
Requirement — Overview
The applicant is required to submit copies of non-patent literature and relevant technical information as set forth below.
Basis for Requirement
35 U.S.C. § 131 provides:
The Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor.
37 C.F.R. § 1.105(a) provides:
In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 371 (including a reissue application), in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example:
….
(iii) Related information: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign), by any of the inventors, that relates to the claimed invention.
(iv) Information used to draft application: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft the application.
(v) Information used in invention process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result.
…
(viii) Technical information known to applicant. Technical information known to applicant concerning the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Background
The applicant has stated in a publicly available European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI) record that US2025031125, which is the publication of the present application, Application No. 18/769,979 (“the Application”) “may be or may become ESSENTIAL in relation to at least the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex.”1
Necessity for this Requirement.
This Requirement is issued pursuant to the Director’s duty and authority to examine patent applications. See 35 U.S.C. § 131; 37 C.F.R. § 1.105(a). The ETSI record indicates the applicant likely possesses information relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) that is necessary for a more complete understanding of the invention and its context. See MPEP § 704.11. Such information may include non-patent literature and technical materials (e.g., contribution papers or Tdocs) authored, generated, or submitted by the applicant or others that form the basis of, or resulted from, the claimed invention.
Applicant is Required to Submit:
Copies of any non-patent literature relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the ETSI record for the Application, which satisfies any of the following criteria:
Authored by any of the inventors and related to the claimed invention,
Used to draft the present application, or
Used in the invention process (for example, used to design around prior art or to provide a solution that enabled the claimed invention); and
Any technical information known to the applicant relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the ETSI record for the Application, which concerns the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Instructions to Applicant
A complete reply to this Requirement is a reply to each enumerated requirement for information giving either the information required or a statement that the information required to be submitted is unknown and/or is not readily available to the applicant. There is no requirement for the applicant to show that the required information was not, in fact, readily attainable, but the applicant is required to make a good faith attempt to obtain the information and to make a reasonable inquiry once the information is requested. See MPEP § 704.12(b).
This Requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR §§ 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and is accorded the same period for reply as the action on the merits sent with this Requirement. See MPEP § 704.13 (third paragraph). EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136 (a).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please Forms for patent applications | USPTO. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9 and 15-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12 and 13 of co-pending Application No. 18/770,225 (“Reference Application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Reference Application discloses a method and a user equipment with all of the claimed limitations of the method and the user equipment as recited in the current application..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Current Application
Application No. 18/770,225 (Reference Application)
1. A method for supporting multi-hop UE-to-UE relay, comprising:
a second relay UE is provided with a maximum number of hops specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) by a network;
the second relay UE receives a first PC5-S message from a first relay UE, wherein the first PC5-S message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of a first end UE, the RSC, and a first accumulated number of hops; and
the second relay UE transmits or broadcasts a second PC5-S message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than or equal to the maximum number of hops, wherein the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the first end UE and the RSC.
1. A method for supporting multi-hop UE-to-Network (U2N) Relay, comprising:
a second relay UE is provided with a maximum number of hops specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) by a network;
the second relay UE receives a first U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message from a first relay UE, wherein the first U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of the first relay UE, the RSC, and a first accumulated number of hops; and
the second relay UE transmits or broadcasts a second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than or equal to the maximum number of hops, wherein the second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message includes the User Info ID of the second relay UE, the RSC, and a second accumulated number of hops.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the second PC5-S message includes a second accumulated number of hops set to the first accumulated number of hops plus 1.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the second accumulated number of hops is set to the first accumulated number of hops plus 1.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the second relay UE does not transmit or broadcast the second PC5-S message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is greater than the maximum number of hops.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the second relay UE does not transmit or broadcast the second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is greater than the maximum number of hops.
8. A method for supporting multi-hop UE-to-UE relay, comprising:
a second relay UE is provided with a maximum number of hops specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) by a network;
the second relay UE receives a first PC5-S message from a first relay UE, wherein the first PC5-S message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of a first end UE, the RSC, and an accumulated number of hops; and
the second relay UE transmits or broadcasts a second PC5-S message, wherein the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the first end UE and a first relay indication to indicate it is allowed to broadcast at least the user info ID of the first end UE if the accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than the maximum number of hops.
1. A method for supporting multi-hop UE-to-Network (U2N) Relay, comprising:
a second relay UE is provided with a maximum number of hops specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) by a network;
the second relay UE receives a first U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message from a first relay UE, wherein the first U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of the first relay UE, the RSC, and a first accumulated number of hops; and
the second relay UE transmits or broadcasts a second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than or equal to the maximum number of hops, wherein the second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message includes the User Info ID of the second relay UE, the RSC, and a second accumulated number of hops.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the second PC5-S message includes a second relay indication to indicate it is not allowed to broadcast at least the User Info ID of the first end UE if the accumulated number of hops plus 1 is equal to the maximum number of hops.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the second relay UE does not transmit or broadcast the second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is greater than the maximum number of hops.
15. A second relay User Equipment (UE), comprising:
a control circuit;
a processor installed in the control circuit; and
a memory installed in the control circuit and operatively coupled to the processor;
wherein the processor is configured to execute a program code stored in the memory to:
store a maximum number of hops specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) provided by a network;
receive a first PC5-S message from a first relay UE, wherein the first PC5-S message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of a first end UE, the RSC, and a first accumulated number of hops; and
transmit or broadcast a second PC5-S message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than or equal to the maximum number of hops, wherein the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the first end UE and the RSC.
9. A second relay User Equipment (UE) for supporting multi-hop UE-to-Network (U2N) Relay, wherein the second relay UE is provided with a maximum number of hops specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) by a network, comprising:
a control circuit;
a processor installed in the control circuit; and
a memory installed in the control circuit and operatively coupled to the processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute a program code stored in the memory to:
receive a first U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message from a first relay UE, wherein the first U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of the first relay UE, the RSC, and a first accumulated number of hops; and
transmit or broadcast a second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than or equal to the maximum number of hops, wherein the second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message includes the User Info ID of the second relay UE, the RSC, and a second accumulated number of hops.
16. The second relay UE of claim 15, wherein the second PC5-S message includes a second accumulated number of hops set to the first accumulated number of hops plus 1.
12. The second relay UE of claim 9, wherein the second accumulated number of hops is set to the first accumulated number of hops plus 1.
17. The second relay UE of claim 15, wherein the second relay UE does not transmit or broadcast the second PC5-S message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is greater than the maximum number of hops.
13. The second relay UE of claim 9, wherein the second relay UE does not transmit or broadcast the second U2N Relay Discovery Announcement message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is greater than the maximum number of hops.
Claims 4-7, 10-14 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12 and 13 of Reference Application in view of Leng et al. (US Patent Publication No. US2024/0147489).
As shown above with respect to claims 1-3, 8, 9 and 15-17 of the current application, claimed limitations in claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12 and 13 of the Reference Application disclose all the claimed limitations of claims 1-3, 8, 9 and 15-17 in the current application. The claimed limitations in the Reference Application do not disclose the claimed limitations additionally recited in claims 4-7, 10-14 and 18-20.
However, Leng et al. discloses all of the claimed limitations additionally recited in claims 4-7, 10-14 and 18-20 (see the rejections of claims 4-7, 10-14 and 18-20 under 35 USC §102 below for details).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method and the UE employing the multi-hop side-link relay communication taught by the claims of the Reference Application to incorporate the features taught by Leng et al., i.e., the utilization of relay quantity-related information during the discovery process in order to achieve an effective multi-relay communication (See, Leng et al., ¶s[0076]-[0077]).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section151, 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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leng et al. (US Patent Publication No. US2024/0147489).
Regarding claim 1, Leng et al. discloses a method for supporting multi-hop UE-to-UE relay (See, Fig. 6), comprising:
a second relay UE (Fig. 6, any of UE2 to UE4) is provided with a maximum number of hops (¶[0080], “N′”2) specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) (See, ¶[0177]) by a network (¶s [0083] and [0084]);
the second relay UE receives a first PC5-S message (See, ¶[0058], a UE-to-UE sidelink (also known as PC5 connection);” Fig.6, “Discovery message/DCR message,” and ¶[0101], “first message;” and ¶s[0060]-[0063] and [0111], “Model A” discovery message) from a first relay UE (Fig. 6, e.g., UE3 is the second relay UE, UE2 is the first relay UE), wherein the first PC5-S message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of a first end UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,” and [0119] and [0123], the “first hop device list,” the “list includes IDs of M electronic devices.” See, e.g., Fig. 6, UE1 corresponds to a first end UE), the RSC (See, ¶[0101], “The first message is a discovery message or a DCR message…includes… high-level identification information;” and [0177], “the high-level indication includes a relay service code (RSC) indication”), and a first accumulated number of hops (¶[0101], the “hop counter”); and
the second relay UE transmits or broadcasts a second PC5-S message (See, Fig. 6, UE 2 and UE3 each transmitting a “discovery message;” and ¶s[0107] (“the UE2 … forwards the first message”) and [0108] (the UE3 … forwards the first message”)) if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than or equal to the maximum number of hops (See, ¶[0107], “the maximum number of relays (i.e., 2)”). As discussed, N′ is the maximum allowed number hops. That is, in this example shown in Fig. 6, N′=2. For the UE2, the accumulated number of hop received from UE1 (‘0’) plus 1 = 1, which is less than 2 (see, ¶[0107]). For the UE3, the accumulated number of hop received from UE2 (‘1’) plus 1 = 2 (see, ¶[0108]), which is equal to N′), wherein the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the first end UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,” and [0119] and [0123], the “first hop device list,” the “list includes IDs of M electronic devices.”) and the RSC (See, ¶[0101] and [0177]).
Regarding claim 2/1, Leng et al. discloses that the second PC5-S message includes a second accumulated number of hops set to the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 (See, Fig. 6; ¶s[0107] and [0108], the second accumulated number of hops is 1 in the case of UE2 and 2 for the UE3).
Regarding claim 3/1, Leng et al. discloses that the second relay UE does not transmit or broadcast the second PC5-S message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is greater than the maximum number of hops (See, ¶[0109], the “UE4 will no longer forward the first message because the first hop counter in the first message indicates the number of forwards is 2.” Here, hop counter +1 = 3, which is greater than the maximum number of hops, i.e., N′ (=2)).
Regarding claim 4/1, Leng et al. discloses that the first PC5-S message includes a User Info ID of a second end UE (See, e.g., ¶[0101], “The first message includes related information of a target device such as L2 (data link layer) identifier (ID) information;” and ¶[0160], “the first message includes target UE information (indicating UE4 is the target UE) such as L2 ID information”), a User Info ID of the first relay UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,”), and/or a ProSe Identifier (ID) (See, ¶[0066], “The information may be ProSe application identifier”).
Regarding claim 5/1, Leng et al. discloses that communication between the first end UE and the second end UE is done via at least the first relay UE and the second relay UE after a connection between the first end UE and the second end UE is established (See, ¶[0058], “Once the source UE and target UE discover each other, they can perform relay selection to select a suitable relay UE and respectively establish connections with the relay UE. Then, the relay UE serves as a relay to establish a UE-to-UE sidelink (also known as PC5 connection);” Fig. 6; ¶[0106]-[0110], “when the UE4 is the target UE”, the communication between UE1 and UE4 would be via UE2 and UE3, i.e., first and second relay UEs. See, also, ¶[0081].).
Regarding claim 6/1, Leng et al. discloses that the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the second end UE (See, e.g., ¶[0101], “The first message includes related information of a target device such as L2 (data link layer) identifier (ID) information;” and ¶[0160], “the first message includes target UE information (indicating UE4 is the target UE) such as L2 ID information”), a User Info ID of the second relay UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,”), and/or the ProSe ID (See, ¶[0066], “The information may be ProSe application identifier”).
Regarding claim 7/1, Leng et al. discloses that the first PC5-S message or the second PC5-S message is a Direct Communication Request message (See, Fig. 6, “DCR message;” ¶[0058], “a direct communication request (DCR) message;” and ¶[0068]) or a UE-to-UE Relay Discovery Solicitation message (See, Fig. 6, “discovery message;” ¶[0065], “transmits a request including certain information about what the UE is interested in to discover”.).
Regarding claim 8, Leng et al. discloses a method for supporting multi-hop UE-to-UE relay (Fig. 6), comprising:
a second relay UE (Fig. 6, any of UE2 to UE4) is provided with a maximum number of hops (¶[0080], “N′”3) specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) (See, ¶[0177]) by a network (¶s [0083] and [0084]);
the second relay UE receives a first PC5-S message (See, ¶[0058], a UE-to-UE sidelink (also known as PC5 connection);” Fig.6, “Discovery message/DCR message,” and ¶[0101], “first message;” and ¶s[0060]-[0063] and [0111], “Model A” discovery message) from a first relay UE (Fig. 6, e.g., UE3 is the second relay UE, UE2 is the first relay UE), wherein the first PC5-S message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of a first end UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,” and [0119] and [0123], the “first hop device list,” the “list includes IDs of M electronic devices.” See, e.g., Fig. 6, UE1 corresponds to a first end UE), the RSC (See, ¶[0101], “The first message is a discovery message or a DCR message…includes… high-level identification information;” and [0177], “the high-level indication includes a relay service code (RSC) indication”), and an accumulated number of hops (¶[0101], the “hop counter”); and
the second relay UE transmits or broadcasts a second PC5-S message (See, Fig. 6, UE 2 and UE3 each transmitting a “discovery message;” and ¶s[0107] (“the UE2 … forwards the first message”) and [0108] (the UE3 … forwards the first message”)), wherein the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the first end UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,” and [0119] and [0123], the “first hop device list,” the “list includes IDs of M electronic devices.”) and a first relay indication to indicate it is allowed to broadcast at least the user info ID of the first end UE (See, ¶[0104], “the first electronic device forwards the first message from the UE1 in following conditions, … is authorized as a relay device for U2U”), if the accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than the maximum number of hops (See, ¶[0107], “the maximum number of relays (i.e., 2)”). As discussed, N′ is the maximum allowed number hops. That is, in this example shown in Fig. 6, N′=2. For the UE2, the accumulated number of hop received from UE1 (‘0’) plus 1 = 1, which is less than 2 (see, ¶[0107]). For the UE3, the accumulated number of hop received from UE2 (‘1’) plus 1 = 2 (see, ¶[0108]), which is equal to N′).
Regarding claim 9/8, Leng et al. discloses that the second PC5-S message includes a second relay indication (See, ¶[0103], “the first message further includes an indication of the maximum number of relays”), to indicate it is not allowed to broadcast at least the User Info ID of the first end UE if the accumulated number of hops plus 1 is equal to the maximum number of hops (See, e.g., ¶[0098], “the relay device forwards the first message only when the number of hops for the first message is less than the maximum number of relays.”).
Regarding claim 10/8, Leng et al. discloses that the second PC5-S message does not include the first relay indication if the accumulated number of hops plus 1 is equal to the maximum number of hops (See, ¶[0104], “the first electronic device forwards the first message from the UE1 in … a conditions that the first hop counter in the first message is less than the maximum number of relays.”).
Regarding claim 11/8, Leng et al. discloses that the first PC5-S message includes another relay indication to indicate it is allowed to broadcast at least the User Info ID of the first end UE (See, e.g., ¶[0104], “a condition that the first electronic device is determined not to be the target UE based on the related information of the target device,; and “a condition that a relay of a service corresponding to the first message is determined to be supported based on an upper-level rule”).
Regarding claim 12/8, Leng et al. discloses that the first PC5-S message includes a User Info ID of a second end UE (See, e.g., ¶[0101], “The first message includes related information of a target device such as L2 (data link layer) identifier (ID) information;” and ¶[0160], “the first message includes target UE information (indicating UE4 is the target UE) such as L2 ID information”), a User Info ID of the first relay UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,”), and/or a ProSe Identifier (ID) (See, ¶[0066], “The information may be ProSe application identifier”).
Regarding claim 13/8, Leng et al. discloses that the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the second end UE (See, e.g., ¶[0101], “The first message includes related information of a target device such as L2 (data link layer) identifier (ID) information;” and ¶[0160], “the first message includes target UE information (indicating UE4 is the target UE) such as L2 ID information”), a User Info ID of the second relay UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,”), the ProSe ID (See, ¶[0066], “The information may be ProSe application identifier”), and/or the RSC (See, ¶[0101], “The first message is a discovery message or a DCR message…includes… high-level identification information;” and [0177], “the high-level indication includes a relay service code (RSC) indication”).
Regarding claim 14/8, Leng et al. discloses that the first PC5-S message or the second PC5-S message is a Direct Communication Request message (See, Fig. 6, “DCR message;” ¶[0058], “a direct communication request (DCR) message;” and ¶[0068]) or a UE-to-UE Relay Discovery Solicitation message (See, Fig. 6, “discovery message;” ¶[0065], “transmits a request including certain information about what the UE is interested in to discover”.).
Regarding claim 15, Leng et al. discloses a second relay User Equipment (UE) (Fig. 6, any one of UE2 – UE4), comprising:
a control circuit (Fig. 11, Communication Device 600; and ¶[0231], “the communication device 600 may be the first electronic device and/or the second electronic device”);
a processor installed in the control circuit (Fig. 11, #610); and
a memory installed in the control circuit and operatively coupled to the processor (Fig. 11, #620);
wherein the processor is configured to execute a program code stored in the memory (See, ¶s[0226] and [0227]) to:
store a maximum number of hops (See, ¶s[0080], “N′;” [0083] and claim 2, “the relay quantity-related information comprises a maximum number of relays in the sidelink; wherein the maximum number of relays is pre-configured or configured by at least one of a network device and the first electronic device”. See, also above footnote 2) specific for a Relay Service Code (RSC) (See, ¶[0101], “The first message is a discovery message or a DCR message…includes… high-level identification information;” and [0177], “the high-level indication includes a relay service code (RSC) indication”) provided by a network (¶ [0083], [0084], [0098] and [0037]);
receive a first PC5-S message (See, ¶[0058], a UE-to-UE sidelink (also known as PC5 connection);” Fig.6, “Discovery message/DCR message,” and ¶[0101], “first message;” and ¶s[0060]-[0063] and [0111], “Model A” discovery message) from a first relay UE (Fig. 6, e.g., UE3 is the second relay UE, UE2 is the first relay UE), wherein the first PC5-S message includes a User Info Identity (ID) of a first end UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,” and [0119] and [0123], the “first hop device list,” the “list includes IDs of M electronic devices.” See, e.g., Fig. 6, UE1 corresponds to a first end UE), the RSC (See, ¶[0101], “The first message is a discovery message or a DCR message…includes… high-level identification information;” and [0177], “the high-level indication includes a relay service code (RSC) indication”), and an accumulated number of hops (¶[0101], the “hop counter”); and
transmit or broadcast a second PC5-S message (See, Fig. 6, UE 2 and UE3 each transmitting a “discovery message;” and ¶s[0107] (“the UE2 … forwards the first message”) and [0108] (the UE3 … forwards the first message”)) if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is less than or equal to the maximum number of hops (See, ¶[0107], “the maximum number of relays (i.e., 2)”). As discussed, N′ is the maximum allowed number hops. That is, in this example shown in Fig. 6, N′=2. For the UE2, the accumulated number of hop received from UE1 (‘0’) plus 1 = 1, which is less than 2 (see, ¶[0107]). For the UE3, the accumulated number of hop received from UE2 (‘1’) plus 1 = 2 (see, ¶[0108]), which is equal to N′), wherein the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the first end UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,” and [0119] and [0123], the “first hop device list,” the “list includes IDs of M electronic devices.”) and the RSC (See, ¶[0101], “The first message is a discovery message or a DCR message…includes… high-level identification information;” and [0177], “the high-level indication includes a relay service code (RSC) indication”).
Regarding claim 16/15, Leng et al. further discloses that the second PC5-S message includes a second accumulated number of hops set to the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 (See, Fig. 6; ¶s[0107] and [0108], the second accumulated number of hops is 1 in the case of UE2 and 2 for the UE3).
Regarding claim 17/15, Leng et al. further discloses that the second relay UE does not transmit or broadcast the second PC5-S message if the first accumulated number of hops plus 1 is greater than the maximum number of hops (See, ¶[0109], the “UE4 will no longer forward the first message because the first hop counter in the first message indicates the number of forwards is 2.” Here, hop counter +1 = 3, which is greater than the maximum number of hops, i.e., N′ (=2)).
Regarding claim 18/15, Leng et al. further discloses that the first PC5-S message includes a User Info ID of a second end UE(See, e.g., ¶[0101], “The first message includes related information of a target device such as L2 (data link layer) identifier (ID) information;” and ¶[0160], “the first message includes target UE information (indicating UE4 is the target UE) such as L2 ID information”), a User Info ID of the first relay UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,”), and/or a ProSe Identifier (ID) (See, ¶[0066], “The information may be ProSe application identifier”).
Regarding claim 19/15, Leng et al. further discloses that the second PC5-S message includes the User Info ID of the second end UE (See, e.g., ¶[0101], “The first message includes related information of a target device such as L2 (data link layer) identifier (ID) information;” and ¶[0160], “the first message includes target UE information (indicating UE4 is the target UE) such as L2 ID information”), a User Info ID of the second relay UE (See, ¶[0058]-[0063], “the notifying UE will broadcast its own information,”), the ProSe ID (See, ¶[0066], “The information may be ProSe application identifier”).
Regarding claim 20/15, Leng et al. further discloses that the first PC5-S message or the second PC5-S message is a Direct Communication Request message (See, Fig. 6, “DCR message;” ¶[0058], “a direct communication request (DCR) message;” and ¶[0068]) or a UE-to-UE Relay Discovery Solicitation message (See, Fig. 6, “discovery message;” ¶[0065], “transmits a request including certain information about what the UE is interested in to discover”.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KI S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM - 5:30PM.
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 R 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.
/K.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 June 3, 2026
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 See ASUSTeK Computer Inc’s IPR Information Statement and IPR Licensing Declaration and IPR
Information Statement Annex, ISLD-202503-030, pp 1 & 3, Retrieved from the Internet<URL: https://ipr.etsi.org/IPRDetails.aspx?IPRD_ID=9171&IPRD_TYPE_ID=2&MODE=2&sessionkey=e9c1de> (Year: 2025). A copy of the ISLD-202503-030 is being provided herewith.
2 It is noted that, a comparison of the Applicant’s disclosure (Fig 17; and ¶[0301]) with Fig. 6 and ¶[0080] of Leng et al. shows that what the Applicant refers to as the maximum number of hops should be equated with N′, i.e., the maximum number of relays, of Leng et al. That is, Fig. 6 of Leng et al. shows that the “hop count” of Leng et al. starts with the count of ‘0,’ i.e., the ‘hop’ from UE1 to UE2 is a ‘0’ hop. In contrast, according to the Applicant’s disclosure, it is apparent that the hop count starts at 1. See, Applicant’s disclosure Fig. 17; ¶[0301], “Route A has 3 hops and Route B has 2 hops” (where Route A is depicted as including 3 relays, and while Route B includes 2 relays). Accordingly, when properly normalized with respect to each other, the maximum number of hops as referred to by the Applicant’s disclosure correspond to N′ of Leng et al., and likewise, the accumulated number of hops as referred to that term by the Applicant’s disclosure corresponds to the hop counter plus 1 in Leng et al.
3 See, footnote 2 above.
Prosecution Insights