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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 14, 41, 43-44, 54 and 66-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohini et al. (US 2023/0354037) in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0164523). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Rohini discloses a relay communication method (figs. 1-3), performed by first user equipment (UE), the relay communication method comprising: sending a first request message to a first access and mobility management function (AMF) (step 0a), wherein the first request message is used to request security information for relay communication discovery between the first UE and second UE (paras. 34-35); wherein, the first AMF sends second request information for requesting the security information to a first policy control function (PCF) corresponding to the first UE (step 0b; paras. 34-35).
However, Rohini fails to disclose the first request message comprises first identification information of the first UE, and the first identification information is used by the first AMF to send second request information for requesting the security information to a first policy control function (PCF) corresponding to the first UE. Wu discloses identification information of a UE used by an AMF to send a request to a PCF for policy information (fig. 8, steps S802-S807; paras. 206-207, 210, 212-214, 220 (note: SUPI), 223-224 and 242; paras. 197 and tables 2-4; note: policy information based on the group of the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first request message comprise first identification information of the first UE, and the first identification information used by the first AMF to send second request information for requesting the security information to a first policy control function (PCF) corresponding to the first UE in the invention of Rohini. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, associating a policy for an identified UE as is known in the art (Wu, fig. 8 and paras. 197, 199-203, 206-207, 210, 212-214, 220, 223-224 and 242; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1 from the perspective of the AMF.
Regarding claim 41, Rohini in view of Wu discloses a relay communication method, performed by a first policy control function (PCF), the relay communication method comprising: receiving a second request message (Rohini, step 0b), the second request message is sent by a first access and mobility management function (AMF) according to the relay communication method of claim 14
Regarding claims 43-44, these limitations are rejected for further defining an unaddressed alternative of claim 41. Examiner notes claim 44 further defines the fourth request message which is an unaddressed alternative of claim 41.
Regarding claim 54, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-2 from the perspective of the AMF.
Regarding claim 66, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1. In addition, Rohini discloses a communication device (UE), wherein the communication device comprises (para. 108): one or more processors; and a memory for storing executable instructions of the one or more processors; wherein the executable instructions when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the relay communication method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 67, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1. In addition, Rohini discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium (para. 108), wherein the non-transitory computer storage medium stores a computer executable program, and the computer executable program, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform the relay communication method according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 8, 10, 15-17, 42, 46, 55 and 57-58 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. Examiner notes Wu discloses a group identifier of the UE transmitted to an AMF from a UDM and not from a PCF (fig. 8, S804 and para. 210).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wifvesson (US 2026/0214442) discloses a PCF providing to a UE via an AMF an RCS and Relay ID for the UE (fig. 3 and paras. 60-61).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights