DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Etemad (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0003319).
Regarding Claim 8, Etemad discloses a system for network-based intelligent multicasting in cellular networks (Figure 5 and paragraph 0038 – eNodeB 500), the system comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 5 and paragraph 0039 – processor 510); and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor (Figure 5 and paragraphs 0039 and 0041 – memory 520 stores instructions for execution by the processor 510),
wherein the at least one memory has computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (Figure 5 and paragraphs 0039 and 0041 – memory 520 stores instructions for execution by the processor 510), the operations including:
generating, by a base station, User Grouping Criteria (UGC) for a plurality of User Equipment (UEs) within a cell (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0022-0023 - The eNodeB provides member identifiers for the UEs UE1, UE2, and UE3 in response to a group configuration request received from a UE. The eNodeB may further provide logical channel group identifiers (LCGID) for those group members that have transmission rights to perform multicast D2D transmissions);
determining, based on the UGC, a group of UEs from the plurality of UEs that meet the UGC and are capable of device-to-device communication (paragraph 0023 – the eNodeB provides logical channel group identifiers for UEs included as part of the UE’s group configuration request);
scheduling, by the base station, multicasting of transmissions for the group of UEs, the multicasting transmissions using device-to-device (D2D) communication (paragraph 0023 - the eNodeB may further provide logical channel group identifiers (LCGID) for those group members that have transmission rights to perform multicast D2D transmissions; paragraph 0026 - upon configuration of the group, the UE1 may start preparation for multicast D2D transmissions to UE2 and UE3; paragraph 0030 - the eNodeB may also apply semi-persistent scheduling of resources. For example, the eNodeB may not schedule resources each time a UE makes a token request. Instead, the eNodeB may allocate multiple resources so that the UE may transmit multiple times without necessitating a token request between each transmission); and
facilitating direct D2D communication between UEs in the group according to the scheduling without routing data through the base station (Figure 2 and paragraph 0028 – upon configuration of the group, the UEs perform D2D multicast without routing data through the base station).
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the same steps performed by the system of Claim 8. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 8.
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause operations to be performed, the operations performed by the system of Claim 8. Etemad, at Figure 5 and paragraph 0039, discloses memory 520 storing instructions to be executed by the eNodeB. The remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 8.
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18, Etemad discloses utilizing a Downlink Control Information (DCI) format to communicate scheduling information to the group of UEs (paragraph 0027 – the eNodeB provides resource assignments for the D2D communications utilizing DCI).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Etemad discloses utilizing uplink spectrum for D2D communication between UEs in the group (paragraphs 0028-0029 – the UE1 can perform multicast D2D transmission and the eNodeB can assign an uplink channel resource for UE2 to perform multicast D2D transmission).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etemad in view of Yasukawa et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0168589), hereinafter Yasukawa. Etemad discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15, as described above. However, Etemad does not disclose receiving capability information from each UE in the plurality of UEs, the capability information including an Information Element (IE) indicating whether there exists D2D communication capability of the UE. In an analogous art, Yasukawa discloses this. Specifically, Yasukawa discloses UEs reporting UE capability information to the base station in order to determine limitation information (paragraphs 0146-0147). The capability information is utilized to determine suitability for sidelink (D2D) communications (paragraph 0176). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Etemad and Yasukawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow discovery of UEs that are capable of sidelink communication in environments such as V2X (refer to paragraph 0009 of Yasukawa).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etemad in view of Esswie (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0064603). Etemad discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15, as described above. However, Etemad does not disclose analyzing measurement reports and Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) data from each UE in the plurality of UEs; determining locations of each UE in the plurality of UEs; and evaluating directionality between each UE in the plurality UEs. In an analogous art, Esswie discloses this. Specifically, Esswie discloses a terminal receiving sidelink resource availability reports from multiple other terminals in a network (Figure 6 at 630) comprising CQI (paragraph 0113). The terminal then determines a sidelink data split ratio among determined routes and paths (i.e., determination of location and directionality of respective UEs) utilizing the CQI reports (paragraph 0114). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Etemad and Esswie. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve reliability, which tends to improve data rate since packets deleted due to congestion along one path may still be delivered without substantial delay, or substantial latency, via a different path (refer to paragraph 0111 of Esswie).
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etemad in view of Hahn et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0099975), hereinafter Hahn.
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, Etemad discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15, as described above. However, Etemad does not disclose implementing error management and retransmission protocols for the direct D2D communication between UEs. In an analogous art, Hahn discloses this. Specifically, Hahn discloses blind retransmission modes for sidelink data based on determined quality measurements (refer to paragraph 0084 and accompanying Table 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Etemad and Hahn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve reliability in the network and avoid persistent collisions (refer to paragraph 0120 of Hahn).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Etemad and Hahn further discloses identifying UEs with a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) below a predetermined threshold; and facilitating transmitting multicast data via D2D communication multiple times to the identified UEs (paragraph 0084 of Hahn – a specific retransmission mode is utilized when a CQI is less than a threshold). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Etemad and Hahn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve reliability in the network and avoid persistent collisions (refer to paragraph 0120 of Hahn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Uyoata et al (“Robust Multicast Device-to-Device Communication”) is directed to multicast communication within a group of user equipment.
Mach et al (“In-Band Device-to-Device Communication in OFDMA Cellular Networks: A Survey and Challenges”) is directed to configuration and mode selection for D2D communication networks.
Militano et al (“Single Frequency-Based Device-to-Device-Enhanced Video Delivery for Evolved Multimedia Broadcast and Multicast Services”) is directed to configuration in D2D clustering networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights