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 .
Claims 1-8, 19-27 and 38-39 are pending
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 19, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite numbers which are shown in parentheses, these numbers won’t be considered and need to be removed from the claims, Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 19-22, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paladugu et al (US20240414513).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Paladugu discloses a method (300) performed by a first user equipment (UE) (Abstract discloses a method may include transmitting, to one or more UEs including a second UE, a sidelink discovery message for a communication with a third UE), comprising: transmitting (302) a multi path UE-to-network relay discovery message (¶0066 discloses that the source UE 602 may transmit a solicitation message 608 to one or more relay UEs 604), wherein the multi path UE-to-network relay discovery message comprises first information indicating that the multi path UE-to-network relay discovery message is specific for multi-path UE-to-network relay communication or a specific kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication (this limitation is interpreted in the light of applicant’s specification ¶0181. ¶0108 discloses that discovery message comprises a broadcast or a groupcast to a destination L2 identifier for user-to-user relay discovery or a unicast to the one ormore UEs); and when a candidate relay UE is able to act as a relay UE used for the multi-path UE-to- network relay communication or the specific kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication, receiving (304) a multi path UE-to-network relay discovery response message from the candidate relay UE (¶0068 discloses that the destination UE 606 may transmit a solicitation response message 614 …to the source UE 602… the solicitation response message 614 may include … source user information associated with the UE 602, destination user information associated with the UE 606).
Regarding claim 2, the cited reference Paladugu discloses all limitations of claim 1. Paladugu further discloses the first information comprises at least one of: a specific destination layer 2 identifier (ID), a specific sidelink (SL) logical channel (LCH) ID, or an indicator (¶0080 discloses that the sidelink discovery message includes a RSC, source UE information associated with the first UE, destination UE information associated with the third UE, and a set of cost metrics associated with relay UE selection, the set of cost metrics including at least one of a hop count or one or more link quality metrics. In some aspects, the sidelink discovery message includes a broadcast or a groupcast to a destination L2 identifier for user-to-user relay discovery or a unicast to the one or more UEs, the one or more UEs being associated with a SD-RSRP higher than a threshold).
Regarding claim 3, the cited reference Paladugu discloses all limitations of claim 1. Paladugu further discloses receiving (312) a multi path UE-to-network relay discovery message from a candidate relay UE, wherein the multi path UE-to-network relay discovery message comprises second information indicating that the multi path UE-to-network relay discovery message is specific for multi-path UE-to-network relay communication or a specific kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication (¶0068 discloses that the destination UE 606 may transmit a solicitation response message 614 …to the source UE 602… the solicitation response message 614 may include … source user information associated with the UE 602, destination user information associated with the UE 606).
Regarding claim 4, the cited reference Paladugu discloses all limitations of claim 3. Paladugu further discloses the second information comprises at least one of: a specific destination layer 2 ID,a specific SL LCH ID, or an indicator (¶0080 discloses that the sidelink discovery message includes a RSC, source UE information associated with the first UE, destination UE information associated with the third UE, and a set of cost metrics associated with relay UE selection, the set of cost metrics including at least one of a hop count or one or more link quality metrics. In some aspects, the sidelink discovery message includes a broadcast or a groupcast to a destination L2 identifier for user-to-user relay discovery or a unicast to the one or more UEs, the one or more UEs being associated with a SD-RSRP higher than a threshold).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a method performed by a candidate relay UE performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 2.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 4.
Regarding claim 38, the cited reference Paladugu discloses a first user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor (¶0096 and ¶0106), whereby said first UE is operative to performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 39, the claim is drawn to the first UE performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 4.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al (US20240414513), in view of Pratas et al (US20230262442).
Regarding claim 5, the cited reference Paladugu discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Paladugu does not explicitly disclose the specific kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication comprises at least one of: a first kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication which is used for data duplication, a second kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication which is used for data split, or a third kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication which is used for both data duplication and data split.
In an analogous art Pratas discloses the specific kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication comprises at least one of: a first kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication which is used for data duplication, a second kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication which is used for data split, or a third kind of multi-path UE-to-network relay communication which is used for both data duplication and data split (¶0094 discloses a method may include determining, by the remote UE, to… duplicate the SDT relaying request via the at least one relay UE or a different relay UE, depending on the SDT relaying response received from the at least one relay device. The SDT relaying request is interpreted as data sent to the relay device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Pratas to improve energy efficiency and the coverage of the communication system.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 5. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al (US20240414513), in view of Kang et al (US20220103997).
Regarding claim 6, the cited reference Paladugu discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Paladugu does not explicitly disclose a discovery configuration specific for multi-path UE-to-network relay communication is configured by a network node, preconfigured in a UE or hard-coded in a specification.
In an analogous art Kang discloses a discovery configuration specific for multi-path UE-to-network relay communication is configured by a network node, preconfigured in a UE or hard-coded in a specification (¶0114 discloses that configuration information required for the sidelink relay to transmit or receive a relay discovery message may be acquired from the base station or may be preconfigured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fillingdate of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Kang to improve resource efficiency and the coverage of the communication system.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al (US20240414513), in view of Kang et al et al (US20220103997), in further view of Cheng et al (US20230119616).
Regarding claim 7, the combination Paladugu and Kang discloses all limitations of claim 6. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose the discovery configuration configured by the network node overrides the discovery configuration preconfigured in the UE or hard-coded in the specification.
In an analogous art Cheng discloses the discovery configuration configured by the network node overrides the discovery configuration preconfigured in the UE or hard-coded in the specification (¶0046-¶0047 discloses a techniques for configuring a pool of resources for discovery (also referred to as a discovery pool) to be used for sidelink communication… resources for discovery may be configured separately from resources to be used for communication in sidelink … discovery pool and communication pool may be separately configured in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message, system information block (SIB), or may be preconfigured … Common communication and discovery pools may be separately provided in pre-configuration for out-of-coverage (OOC) UEs. Dedicated communication and discovery pools may be separately provided in RRC reconfiguration message for UEs in a connected mode of operation. A dedicated pool of resources generally refers to a resources dedicated to a particular UE for communication or discover where ¶0048 discloses that the common TX pool may be overwritten by dedicated configuration via RRC reconfiguration message and ¶0070 discloses that the configuration for the discovery pool may be provided in SIB (e.g., for in coverage UE), or preconfigured (e.g., for out-of-coverage (OOC) UE). In some cases, TX pool (e.g., resources for transmission by a UE) may be modified by a dedicated configuration via an RRC reconfiguration message (e.g., RRC reconfiguration message 518) for RRC-connected UEs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Cheng to improve resource efficiency and the coverage of the communication system when the communication device is in-coverage or out-coverage areas.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 7. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 7.
Claims 8 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al (US20240414513), in view of Cao et al (US20230247463).
Regarding claim 8, the cited reference Paladugu discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Paladugu does not explicitly disclose transmission and/or reception of multi path UE-to-network relay discovery message is triggered by at least one triggering criterion.
In an analogous art Cao discloses transmission and/or reception of multi path UE-to-network relay discovery message is triggered by at least one triggering criterion (¶0098 discloses that the first terminal device sends the solicitation message in response to determining that the first triggering condition is satisfied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Cao to reduce unnecessary signaling overhead and avoid network interference and congestion.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 8. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 8.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Paladugu and Cao discloses all limitations of claim 26. Cao further discloses the at least one triggering criterion comprises at least one of:signal quality threshold, or an instruction of a network node (¶0060 discloses that the satisfying and not satisfying condition that the RSRP is greater than the threshold).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application InformationRetrieval (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, seehttp://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights