CTNF 18/791,939 CTNF 93888 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The limitations of claim 45 that recite “means for determining” and “means for transmitting” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the non-structural term “means for’, coupled with functional language “determining” and “transmitting”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim’s limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 34 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the specification that achieve the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows sufficient and definite corresponding structure (or material or algorithm) for performing the above functions (e.g. [0051]-[0053], [0073]-[0077], [0088]-[0098] and [00120]-[00126]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 28, 32-36 and 44 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. Claim 28 recites the limitations "the first indication" and “the range” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 32 recites the limitations “the second portion” in lines 5-6 and “the egress hop” in line 6. Claim 33 recites the limitations “the second set of ranges” and “the second portion” in line 2 and “the egress hop” in line 3. Claim 34 recites the limitation “the second indication” in line 3. Claim 35 recites the limitations “the range” in line 1 and “the first indication” in lines 2-3. Claim 36 recites the limitation “the second QoS split configuration” in line 3. Claim 44 recites the limitations “the second set of ranges” in lines 3-4 and “the second portion” in line 4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 26, 28, 34, 36, 38-39, 41 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2024/0049104) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0203408) . Regarding Claim 26, Sun teaches a first terminal device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first terminal device at least to ([0040] The processor 210, alone, or together with instructions stored in the memory 250 performs operations enabling system 200 of the system 100 to implement mechanisms for the QoS enhancement for the side-link relay): determine a quality of service (QoS) split configuration for an end-to-end (E2E) radio bearer (RB) in user equipment (UE)-to-UE relay communication, wherein the first terminal device is a relay in the UE-to-UE relay communication, and the QoS split configuration comprises at least a QoS requirement for a first portion of a QoS parameter configured for the E2E RB, the first portion is for an ingress hop of the first terminal device ([0005] The QoS enforcement configuration includes an indication of enabling or disabling the UE to split an E2E QoS requirement associated with the E2E connection; [0059] The UE 104 determines the one or more first hop and second hop QoS requirements based on a ratio between the link conditions of the first hop 310 and the second hop 312; [0086] At 516, the relay UE 104 determines the QoS requirements to the first hop and the second hop based on the link conditions of the first hop and the second hop. The relay UE 104 can assign the QoS requirements based on the splitting table received from the base station 102. In some aspects, the relay UE 104 determines the QoS requirements based on instructions from the base station 102. For example, the relay UE 104 transmits the link conditions of the first and the second hops to the base station 102. The base station 102 determines the QoS requirements based on the link conditions and transmits the QoS requirements to the relay UE 104; [0099] The UE 104 can split the one or more E.sub.2E QoS requirements into three parts for the hop 704, the hop 706, and the hop 708 based on link conditions of the hops); and transmit the QoS split configuration to a second terminal device, the second terminal device is a transmitting device in the ingress hop of the first terminal device ([0087] At 518, the relay UE 104 transmits the QoS requirement of the first hop to the remote UE 106. The remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust the first hop connection based on the QoS requirement of the first hop. In some aspects, the remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust communication resources of the first hop based on the QoS requirement). However, Sun does not teach the QoS split configuration comprises at least a first set of ranges for a first portion of a QoS parameter configured for the E2E RB. In an analogous art, Zhang teaches the QoS split configuration comprises at least a first set of ranges for a first portion of a QoS parameter configured for the E2E RB ([0262] different PDB levels correspond to different pieces of configuration information, and each PDB level corresponds to a PDB value range; [0293] different PDB levels correspond to different pieces of configuration information, and each PDB level corresponds to a PDB value range; [0292] the first device is a relay terminal device in the end-to-end relay service and is beyond a network coverage, and the apparatus 600 further includes a processing module 630, configured to select configuration information corresponding to a bearer based on a selection priority of each set of configuration information in a case that a same bearer corresponds to a plurality of sets of QoS parameters and each set of the plurality of sets of QoS parameters corresponds to a set of configuration information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Zhang’s method with Sun’s method so that the accuracy of parameter configuration is improved, the negotiation process between devices is simplified, and the efficiency of parameter configuration is improved (Zhang [0104]). Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Sun and Zhang, specifically Sun teaches the first indication of the range among the first set of ranges comprises at least one of an index of the range or a measurement of the first portion of the QoS parameter within the range ([0083] At 510, the relay UE 104 measures a first hop link condition at the relay UE 104. The first hop link condition includes a CBR of the first hop, a signal strength of the first hop, an interference level of the first hop, and others). Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Sun and Zhang, specifically Sun teaches the first terminal device is further caused to: transmit, to the second terminal device, the second indication ([0087] At 518, the relay UE 104 transmits the QoS requirement of the first hop to the remote UE 106. The remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust the first hop connection based on the QoS requirement of the first hop. In some aspects, the remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust communication resources of the first hop based on the QoS requirement). Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Sun and Zhang, specifically Sun teaches the first terminal device is further caused to: transmit the second QoS split configuration to the second terminal device ([0087] At 518, the relay UE 104 transmits the QoS requirement of the first hop to the remote UE 106. The remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust the first hop connection based on the QoS requirement of the first hop. In some aspects, the remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust communication resources of the first hop based on the QoS requirement). Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Sun and Zhang, specifically Sun teaches the second terminal device is an end UE or a relay in the UE-to-UE relay communication ([0078] the UE 104 is referred to as a relay UE 104; the UE 106 is referred to as a remote UE 106; and the UE 108 is referred to as a target UE 108). Regarding Claim 39, Sun teaches a second terminal device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second terminal device at least to ([0040] The processor 210, alone, or together with instructions stored in the memory 250 performs operations enabling system 200 of the system 100 to implement mechanisms for the QoS enhancement for the side-link relay): receive, from a first terminal device, a quality of service (QoS) split configuration for an end-to-end (E2E) radio bearer (RB) in user equipment (UE)-to-UE relay communication, wherein the first terminal device is a relay in the UE-to-UE relay communication and is a receiving device in an egress hop of the second terminal device, and the QoS split configuration comprises at least a QoS requirement for a first portion of a QoS parameter configured for the E2E RB, the first portion is for the egress hop of the second terminal device ([0005] The QoS enforcement configuration includes an indication of enabling or disabling the UE to split an E2E QoS requirement associated with the E2E connection; [0059] The UE 104 determines the one or more first hop and second hop QoS requirements based on a ratio between the link conditions of the first hop 310 and the second hop 312; [0086] At 516, the relay UE 104 determines the QoS requirements to the first hop and the second hop based on the link conditions of the first hop and the second hop. The relay UE 104 can assign the QoS requirements based on the splitting table received from the base station 102. In some aspects, the relay UE 104 determines the QoS requirements based on instructions from the base station 102. For example, the relay UE 104 transmits the link conditions of the first and the second hops to the base station 102. The base station 102 determines the QoS requirements based on the link conditions and transmits the QoS requirements to the relay UE 104; [0087] At 518, the relay UE 104 transmits the QoS requirement of the first hop to the remote UE 106. The remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust the first hop connection based on the QoS requirement of the first hop. In some aspects, the remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust communication resources of the first hop based on the QoS requirement; [0099] The UE 104 can split the one or more E.sub.2E QoS requirements into three parts for the hop 704, the hop 706, and the hop 708 based on link conditions of the hops); and determine a first indication of a QoS requirement for the first portion of the QoS parameter ([0087] At 518, the relay UE 104 transmits the QoS requirement of the first hop to the remote UE 106. The remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust the first hop connection based on the QoS requirement of the first hop. In some aspects, the remote UE 106 and the relay UE 104 adjust communication resources of the first hop based on the QoS requirement). However, Sun does not teach the QoS split configuration comprises at least a first set of ranges for a first portion of a QoS parameter configured for the E2E RB; a range among the first set of ranges for the first portion of the QoS parameter. In an analogous art, Zhang teaches the QoS split configuration comprises at least a first set of ranges for a first portion of a QoS parameter configured for the E2E RB ([0262] different PDB levels correspond to different pieces of configuration information, and each PDB level corresponds to a PDB value range; [0293] different PDB levels correspond to different pieces of configuration information, and each PDB level corresponds to a PDB value range; [0292] the first device is a relay terminal device in the end-to-end relay service and is beyond a network coverage, and the apparatus 600 further includes a processing module 630, configured to select configuration information corresponding to a bearer based on a selection priority of each set of configuration information in a case that a same bearer corresponds to a plurality of sets of QoS parameters and each set of the plurality of sets of QoS parameters corresponds to a set of configuration information); a range among the first set of ranges for the first portion of the QoS parameter ([0262] different PDB levels correspond to different pieces of configuration information, and each PDB level corresponds to a PDB value range; [0293] different PDB levels correspond to different pieces of configuration information, and each PDB level corresponds to a PDB value range; [0292] the first device is a relay terminal device in the end-to-end relay service and is beyond a network coverage, and the apparatus 600 further includes a processing module 630, configured to select configuration information corresponding to a bearer based on a selection priority of each set of configuration information in a case that a same bearer corresponds to a plurality of sets of QoS parameters and each set of the plurality of sets of QoS parameters corresponds to a set of configuration information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Zhang’s method with Sun’s method so that the accuracy of parameter configuration is improved, the negotiation process between devices is simplified, and the efficiency of parameter configuration is improved (Zhang [0104]). Regarding Claim 41, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 28. Regarding Claim 45, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 26 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Back et al. (US 2026/0149666) . Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Sun and Zhang does not teach the first terminal device is caused to determine the QoS split configuration by: obtaining information indicative of the number of hop(s) of the UE-to-UE relay communication during or after an establishment procedure of the UE-to-UE relay communication; and determining, based on the number of hop(s), the first portion of the QoS parameter for the ingress hop of the first terminal device to be included in the QoS split configuration. In an analogous art, Back teaches the first terminal device is caused to determine the QoS split configuration by: obtaining information indicative of the number of hop(s) of the UE-to-UE relay communication during or after an establishment procedure of the UE-to-UE relay communication; and determining, based on the number of hop(s), the first portion of the QoS parameter for the ingress hop of the first terminal device to be included in the QoS split configuration ([0167] if the split PDB (period) is not determined, the UE may use, as the split PDB (period), a value calculated by dividing the end-to-end PDB value by the total number of hops configured from the source remote UE to the target remote UE. That is, the split PDB may be a value obtained by dividing the end-to-end PDB by the number of hops). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Back’s method with Sun’s method so that it provides a method of a relay UE related to a remaining PDB of a previous hop in order to fit an entire PDB in UE-to-UE relay, and transmission that satisfies QoS of a packet is dynamically adjusted depending on a channel situation by selecting a transmission resource in consideration of a remaining PDB during a UE-to-UE relay operation (Back [0028], [0043]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 27, 29-30, 37, 40, 42-43 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ye et al. (US 2025/0380192) teaches method of QoS split performed on the QoS between the source UE and the target UE. Kuo (US 2023/0007455) teaches method for receiving PC-5 signaling message in a wireless communication system. Rao et al. (US 2024/0187935) teaches methods for supporting adaptive QoS in sidelink relays. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU-WEN CHANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7645. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm PT. 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, Un Cho can be reached at 571-272-7919. 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. /YU-WEN CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 2 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 3 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 4 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 5 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 6 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 7 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 8 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 9 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 10 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 11 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 12 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 13 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 14 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 15 Art Unit: 2413 Application/Control Number: 18/791,939 Page 16 Art Unit: 2413
Prosecution Insights