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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Nayak et al. for the "RELAY OPERATIONS IN WIRELESS NETWORKS" filed 08/23/2024 has been examined. This application Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63536767, filed 09/06/2023; from Provisional Application 63542207, filed 10/03/2023 and from Provisional Application 63546431, filed 10/30/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
5. Claims 1-8, 10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) in view of Park et al. (US#2023/0040140).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose an apparatus for wireless communication system supporting relay operations, according to the essential features of the claim. Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) discloses a first station (STA) in a wireless network, the first STA comprising: a memory; a processor coupled to the memory (see Fig. 1B for the structure of the WTRU includes processor 118, memory 130), the processor configured to: perform a relay operation for a second STA that relays a frame between the second STA and a third STA (Figs. 13, 19; para [0250]: a first AP 1322 configured for: relaying packets that are associated with a communication session via established communication path towards a second AP 1332); determine a change in an operational status of the first STA that is indicative of an overload condition of the first STA (para [0145], [0147]: the one or more APs 1322 of a local network (LN, 1320) may provide coverage to a WTRU 102, and the WTRU 102 may communicate with the AP 1322 of the LN 1320 and may handover to the second AP 1332 of a macro network 1330 based on one or more criteria including a signal strength of the communication with the APs 1322 and 1332 and loading of the APs 1322 and 1332); determine to suspend the relay operation for the second STA based on the operational status (Fig. 13; para [0258]: the first AP 1322 may receiving a relay indication indicating whether to stop relaying packets towards the second AP 1332).
Althought, Watfa reference does not disclose expressly the “relay suspension message that indicates a suspension of the relay operation”. However, Watfa teaches in Fig. 13 a diagram illustrated a handover procedure including a transition between a LIPA session and a MRA session using an eNB in a macro network, in which receiving a relay indication indicating whether to stop relaying packets towards the second AP 132 (para [0258]). In the same field of endeavor, Park et al. (US#2023/0040140) teaches in Fig. 11 a flow diagram illustrated a procedure of a Remote UE, in which the remote UE may receive information that the UE-to-network relay operation for the remote UE is suspended from the PC5 communication unit of the relay UE. Such information may be transmitted through a PC5 message, a message described in the conventional operation or a newly defined message such as Direct Link Suspend. The PC5 relaymessage may be a PC5-S or PC5-RRC message (para [0265]-[0270]: transmitting, to a remote UE, a message indicating suspension of a PC5 connection for relaying).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Park’s message indicating suspension of a PC5 connection for relaying into Watfa’s apparatus and systems for enabling managed remote access with the motivation being to provide a relay operations in wireless networks.
Regarding claim 2, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the third STA is an access point (AP) STA (Fig. 13, para [0250]: the first AP 1322 may handover the communication session with the WTRU 102 to the second AP 1332).
Regarding claim 3, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the operational status includes a traffic load of the first STA or a number of other STAs for which the first STA performs relay operations (Fig. 13, para [0147]: the WTRU 102 may communicate with the AP 1322 of the LN 1320 and may handover to the second AP 1332 of the macro network 1330 based on one or more criteria including loading of the APs 1322 and 1332).
Regarding claim 4, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the overload condition is based on a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement of the first STA or a QoS requirement of the second STA (Fig. 15, para [0176]: an indication (e.g., a managed remote access MRA indicator) may be used to inform the HNB/HeNB 1522 about its MRA procedures/behaviors, and the MRA indicator may be used by the HNB/HeNB 1522 (and/or the LGW 1540) to differentiate the MRA bearers/sessions from other bearers/sessions such that a differentiated treatment such as a differentiated packet forwarding path, and/or a differentiated QoS, among others may be rendered).
Regarding claim 5, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that a condition to resume the relay operation for the second STA is met; and transmit, to the second STA, a relay resumption message that indicates a resumption of the relay operation for the second STA (Fig. 13, para [0240]: if the WTRU 102 does not get served by a cell where the LIPA is allowed during the lifetime of the timer, the network may deactivate the LIPA PDN connection when the timer expires, if the WTRU 102 resumes the LIPA service before the timer expires, the network may stop the timer, and the network may also stop the timer if the WTRU 102 resumes the session as an MRA session from a cell where the MRA is allowed).
Regarding claim 6, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the AP, a request message to negotiate suspension of the relay operation; receive, from the AP, a response message that includes indication for the suspension of the relay operation; and suspend the relay operation based on the indication included in the response message (para [0181], [0243]: the MRA data path may be changed based on a condition or a triggering event, and the MRA may be triggered by allowing a user request).
Regarding claim 7, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to advertise the suspension of the relay operation to one or more STAs (Fig. 15, para [0258], [0283]: stop relaying packets towards the second AP 1532).
Regarding claim 8, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the relay operation is a first relay operation, wherein the processor is further configured to continue to perform a second relay operation for a fourth STA and the second relay operation for the fourth STA relays a frame between the fourth STA and a fifth STA (Fig. 13, para [0250]: the first AP 1322 may handover the communication session with the WTRU 102 to the second AP 1332).
Regarding claim 10, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the relay suspension message includes a time at which the relay operation will be suspended (Fig. 15, para [0258], [0283]: stop relaying packets towards the second AP 1532).
Regarding claims 17-20, these claims differ from claims Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) in view of Park et al. (US#2023/0040140) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 examined above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Watfa in view of Park for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claims with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for performing relay operation in wireless network, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
6. Claims 11-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) in view of Park et al. (US#2023/0040140).
Regarding claim 11, the references disclose an apparatus for wireless communication system supporting relay operations, according to the essential features of the claim. Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) discloses a first station (STA) in a wireless network, the first STA comprising: a memory; a processor coupled to the memory (see Fig. 1B for the structure of the WTRU includes processor 118, memory 130), the processor configured to: transmit frames to a second STA that performs a first relay operation that relays a frame between the first STA and a third STA (Figs. 13, 19; para [0250]: a first AP 1322 configured for: relaying packets that are associated with a communication session via established communication path towards a second AP 1332); receive a relay suspension message from the second STA indicating a suspension of the first relay operation (Fig. 13; para [0258]: the first AP 1322 may receiving a relay indication indicating whether to stop relaying packets towards the second AP 1332), wherein the second STA experiences an overload condition; and transmit a frame to the third STA directly or via a fourth STA that performs a second relay operation (para [0145], [0147]: the one or more APs 1322 of a local network (LN, 1320) may provide coverage to a WTRU 102, and the WTRU 102 may communicate with the AP 1322 of the LN 1320 and may handover to the second AP 1332 of a macro network 1330 based on one or more criteria including a signal strength of the communication with the APs 1322 and 1332 and loading of the APs 1322 and 1332).
Althought, Watfa reference does not disclose expressly the “relay suspension message that indicates a suspension of the relay operation”. However, Watfa teaches in Fig. 13 a diagram illustrated a handover procedure including a transition between a LIPA session and a MRA session using an eNB in a macro network, in which receiving a relay indication indicating whether to stop relaying packets towards the second AP 132 (para [0258]). In the same field of endeavor, Park et al. (US#2023/0040140) teaches in Fig. 11 a flow diagram illustrated a procedure of a Remote UE, in which the remote UE may receive information that the UE-to-network relay operation for the remote UE is suspended from the PC5 communication unit of the relay UE. Such information may be transmitted through a PC5 message, a message described in the conventional operation or a newly defined message such as Direct Link Suspend. The PC5 relaymessage may be a PC5-S or PC5-RRC message (para [0265]-[0270]: transmitting, to a remote UE, a message indicating suspension of a PC5 connection for relaying).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Park’s message indicating suspension of a PC5 connection for relaying into Watfa’s apparatus and systems for enabling managed remote access with the motivation being to provide a relay operations in wireless networks.
Regarding claim 12, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the third STA is an access point (AP) STA (Fig. 13, para [0250]: the first AP 1322 may handover the communication session with the WTRU 102 to the second AP 1332).
Regarding claim 13, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 111 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from the second STA, a relay resumption message that indicates a resumption of the first relay operation; and resume transmitting, to the second STA, frames to be relayed by the second STA to the third STA (Fig. 13, para [0240]: if the WTRU 102 does not get served by a cell where the LIPA is allowed during the lifetime of the timer, the network may deactivate the LIPA PDN connection when the timer expires, if the WTRU 102 resumes the LIPA service before the timer expires, the network may stop the timer, and the network may also stop the timer if the WTRU 102 resumes the session as an MRA session from a cell where the MRA is allowed).
Regarding claim 15, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to advertise one or more STAs that have a capability to perform a relay operation to an STA associated with the first STA (Fig. 15, para [0258], [0283]: stop relaying packets towards the second AP 1532).
Regarding claim 16, Watfa in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Watfa et al. (US#2013/0083773) further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a switch message to the second STA that indicates that the first STA intends to switch to the fourth STA, wherein the fourth STA will provide a third relay operation for the first STA (Fig. 13, para [0250]: the first AP 1322 may handover the communication session with the WTRU 102 to the second AP 1332).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 9, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receive, from the AP, a request message that requests information on the operational status of the first STA; and provide, to the AP, a response message that includes information on the operational status of the first STA, wherein the AP advertises the operational status of the first STA, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Chun et al. (US#11,184,834) shows method for access control using relay UE and apparatus therefor
The Tsai et al. (US#2022/0124573) shows apparatuses and methods for recovering from sidelink relay failure.
The Xu et al. (US#11,457,501) shows RRC connection procedures for remote wireless devices
The Liu et al. (US#2025/0056649) shows method performed by UE and UE.
The Freda et al. (US#2025/0294625) shows connection management and recovery associated with multipath sidelink relays.
The Park et al. (US#11,812,509) shows communication related to configuration update.
The Cheng et al. (US#12,604,350) shows RRC timer for layer 2 UE-to-network relay.
10. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
07/03/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights