DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 7/30/2024. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20, 22-23, & 32 are pending.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of PCT/EP2022/053486, filed 2/14/2022. The assignee of record is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). The listed inventor(s) is/are: Orsino, Antonino; Wang, Min.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note
The applicant has claimed “and/or” several times throughout the claims.
The examiner is taking the position that in the case of “element A and/or element B” that the “and/or” covers embodiments having element A alone, element B alone, or elements A and B taken together. The phrase “and/or” is not inherently indefinite and therefore is not objected to or rejected as indefinite.
When construing the claims in the context of a possible anticipation or obviousness rejection, the examiner’s disclosure of any one item from the claimed list will provide sufficient teaching of the entire limitation. In Medline, for example, the PTAB stated that “and/or” is a “disjunctive alternative,” and the prior art showing one of the elements so joined renders the claim unpatentable (See, Medline Indus. Inc. v. Paul Hartmann AG, Case No. IPR2013-00173, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013)).
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 section 151, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-18, 20, 22, & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP (3GPP TSG RAN WG2#116bis-e, 1/25/2022, R2-2201246, copy was provided in applicants 7/30/2024 submission; hereinafter 3GPP246)
For Claim 1, 3GPP246 teaches a method performed by a first user equipment (UE), comprising: transmitting a message comprising a layer 2 (L2) identifier (ID) of the first UE to a network device when at least one of (3GPP246 Section 2.2, During [Post116-e][604] email discussion, all the participating companies support Relay UE in RRC_CONNECTED reporting its source L2 ID to gNB via SUI message. As above discussion, the Relay UE’s source L2 ID may change. In order to associate the L2 ID in measurement report from Remote UE, the latest Relay UE’s source L2 ID should be known by gNB):
the first UE is capable to operate as a relay UE, the first UE has selected the network device to access a network, a peer UE tries to establish a sidelink connection with the first UE, a discovery message for sidelink relay purpose is announced by the first UE, a discovery solicitation message for sidelink relay purpose is received by the first UE, the L2 ID is assigned by the first UE, the L2 ID is selected by the first UE, the L2 ID is changed, the L2 ID is deleted, the L2 ID is not used anymore by the first UE, a report periodicity is satisfied, the first UE receives an indication from a peer UE that a measurement report has been sent to the network device and/or a path switch procedure can be triggered, or the first UE receives an indication for sending L2 ID from the network device (3GPP246 Section 3 Proposal 4 Relay UE in RRC_CONNECTED reports its source L2 ID via SUI message to gNB when its source L2 ID is changed).
For Claim 2, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the discovery message and/or the discovery solicitation message comprise at least one relay related information of: service and application information, group information, slicing information, data network name information, Home Public Land Mobile Network (HPLMN), or Visited Public Land Mobile Network (VPLMN) (3GPP246 Fig. 1).
For Claim 5, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the message further comprises information indicating at least one of: the L2 ID is assigned, the L2 ID is selected, the L2 ID is changed, the L2 ID is deleted, or the L2 ID is not used anymore (3GPP246 Section 3).
For Claim 6, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the periodicity is configured by the network device or decided by the first UE itself or predefined (3GPP246 Section 2.1, 2.2, Fig. 1).
For Claim 7, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the indication from the peer UE is received via an active sidelink connection between the peer UE and the first UE or a broadcast message or a groupcast message (3GPP246 Section 2.1, 2.2, Fig. 1).
For Claim 9, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the relay UE comprises a UE-to-Network (U2N) relay UE (3GPP246 Fig. 1).
For Claim 10, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the L2 ID is used for a direct communication between two UEs (3GPP246 Fig. 1); and/or wherein the L2 ID is used by the network device to associate the L2 ID reported by a second UE to the first UE (3GPP246 Fig. 1).
For Claim 12, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1,wherein the first UE is a candidate U2N relay UE for a second UE (3GPP246 Fig. 1).
For Claim 13, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein when the first UE is determined as a target U2N relay UE for the second UE, the method further comprises: receiving a U2N relay configuration message from the network device (3GPP246 Fig. 1); wherein the U2N relay configuration message comprises Uu and PC5 Radio Link Control (RLC) configuration for relaying, and bearer mapping configuration.
For Claim 15, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the message comprises at least one of: system information, Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, a paging message, medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), layer 1 signaling, or a control protocol data unit of a protocol layer (3GPP246 Sections 2.1, 2.2).
For Claim 16, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a signaling between two UEs comprises at least one of: a PC5-RRC signaling, a PC5-S signaling, a discovery signaling, medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), a control protocol data unit of a protocol layer, or a layer 1 signaling (3GPP246 Fig. 1).
For Claim(s) 17 & 32, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 18, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 20, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 22, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 18 & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP246 in view of Back (WO 2022025665 A1, published 2/3/2022, PE2E English Machine Translation provided with the office action dated Aug of 2026; hereinafter Bac).
For Claim 3, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: transmitting a… response message to a peer UE when the first UE matches the discovery solicitation message from the peer UE (3GPP246 Section 2.1, 2.2, Fig. 1); wherein transmitting a message comprising a layer 2 identifier of the first UE to a network device comprises: for the peer UE, transmitting the message comprising the layer 2 identifier of the first UE to the network device (3GPP246 Section 2.1, 2.2, Fig. 1).
3GPP246 does not explicitly teach a discovery solicitation message.
However, Bac teaches a discovery solicitation message (Bac Pg 28).
Bac and 3GPP246 are analogous art because they are both related to relay UEs.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the messaging techniques of Bac with the system of 3GPP246 because the remote UE can select a relay UE that has sent a response including the same identifier information as the cell identifier information to which it is connected, or preferentially select a connection with the relay UE including the cell identifier information available for camping (Bac Pg 28-29)
For Claim 8, 3GPP246 teaches the method according to claim 1, 3GPP246 does not explicitly teach wherein the indication for sending L2 ID is broadcasted by the network device when a measurement report of relay link and Uu link is received by the network device. However, Bac teaches wherein the indication for sending L2 ID is broadcasted by the network device when a measurement report of relay link and Uu link is received by the network device (Bac Pg 29).
For Claim(s) 19, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 23, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 8 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 20250184709 A1, METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR REPORTING L2 ID OF UE, COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT
Please see PTO-892 for additional listing of relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon, thank you.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights