DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 16-22 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0106728 (hereinafter Cheng ‘728).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng ‘728 discloses a method performed by a relay user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (disclosed is a method performed by a relay UE in a wireless communication system, according to [0112], Fig. 5 [element 115-j]), the method comprising:
establishing a PC5 link with a peer remote UE for UE-to-UE (U2U) sidelink communication between a remote UE and the peer remote UE (PC5 link setup is performed between the relay UE and a source UE [“peer remote UE”] and a destination UE [“remote UE”] in order to facilitate U2U communications between the source UE and the destination UE, according to [0112]-[0113], [0116], Fig. 5 [step 505]);
assigning an identity (ID) of the remote UE and an ID of the peer remote UE for a sidelink relay adaption protocol (SRAP) (the relay UE assigns a local identifier to the source UE and assigns a local identifier to the destination UE, which support an SRAP header that is associated with PC5-S messages, according to [0115], Fig. 5 [step 515]); and
transmitting, to the peer remote UE, a radio resource control (RRC) message including the ID of the remote UE and the ID of the peer remote UE (the relay UE transmits a PC5-RRC message, comprising the source UE local identifier and the destination UE local identifier, to the source UE, according to [0116], Fig. 5 [step 520]).
Claim 24 recites the relay UE, comprising a transceiver and a controller coupled with the transceiver (a UE comprises a transceiver and a processor coupled to said transceiver, according to [0139]-[0141]), that performs the method recited in claim 16, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng ‘728 discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: transmitting, to the remote UE, a RRC message including the ID of the remote UE and the ID of the peer remote UE (the relay UE transmits a PC5-RRC message, comprising the source UE local identifier and the destination UE local identifier, to the destination UE, according to [0116], Fig. 5 [step 520]).
Regarding claim 18, Cheng ‘728 discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the RRC message further includes a layer 2 (L2) ID of the remote UE and a L2 ID of the peer remote UE (the local identifiers that are assigned to each of the source UE and the destination UE are L2 identifiers, according to [0114]).
Regarding claim 19, Cheng ‘728 discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: identifying a data to be transmitted to the peer remote UE (the relay UE identifies a security message, comprising an SRAP header, to be transmitted to the source UE, according to [0118], [0120], Fig. 6 [step 615]); and
determining the PC5 link for the data based on the ID of the peer remote UE (the relay UE performs routing to the correct PC5 link based on the local identifiers in the SRAP header, according to [0122]).
Regarding claim 20, Cheng ‘728 discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the data includes a SRAP header including the ID of the remote UE, the ID of the peer remote UE, and an ID of a bearer for the data (the identified data comprises the SRAP header, which comprises the local identifiers of the source UE and the destination UE, and is associated with a particular SRB (signaling radio bearer), such as SRB0 through SRB3, according to [0122]).
Regarding claim 21, Cheng ‘728 discloses the method of claim 16, wherein a bearer for the U2U sidelink communication is mapped with a radio link control (RLC) channel via a SRAP sublayer of the relay UE (particular SRBs for sidelink communication between the UEs is configured based on a default configuration, such that one or more sidelink RLC channels are established for these SRBs based on this default configuration, whereby this default configuration causes the UE to perform routing based on one or more local identifiers that are included in the SRAP header, according to [0122]).
Regarding claim 22, Cheng ‘728 discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: performing a discovery procedure for the U2U sidelink communication before an establishment of the PC5 link with the peer remote UE (a discovery procedure for sidelink communication between the UEs is performed before the link setup procedure, according to [0106]-[0108]).
Claims 25-29 do not differ substantively from claims 17-21, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claims 17-21, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng ‘728 as applied to claims 16 and 24 above, in view of Cheng, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0284116 (hereinafter Cheng ‘116).
Regarding claim 23, Cheng ‘728 discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Cheng ‘728 does not expressly disclose that a PC5 link with the remote UE is established for the U2U sidelink communication before an establishment of the PC5 link with the peer remote UE.
Cheng ‘116 discloses that a PC5 link with the remote UE is established for the U2U sidelink communication before an establishment of the PC5 link with the peer remote UE (a unicast link (which may be a PC5 link, according to [0083]) between a UE and a first relay UE is initially established, whereby a unicast link is later established between said UE and a second relay UE before the release of the unicast link between said UE and said first relay UE, according to [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng ‘728 with Cheng ‘116 such that a PC5 link with the remote UE is established for the U2U sidelink communication before an establishment of the PC5 link with the peer remote UE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate mission-critical mesh communications (Cheng ‘116: [0065]).
Regarding claim 30, Cheng ‘728 discloses all the limitations of claim 24. Additionally, Cheng ‘728 discloses that the controller is further configured to: perform a discovery procedure for the U2U sidelink communication before an establishment of the PC5 link with the peer remote UE (a discovery procedure for sidelink communication between the UEs is performed before the link setup procedure, according to [0106]-[0108]).
Cheng ‘728 does not expressly disclose that a PC5 link with the remote UE is established for the U2U sidelink communication before an establishment of the PC5 link with the peer remote UE.
Cheng ‘116 discloses that a PC5 link with the remote UE is established for the U2U sidelink communication before an establishment of the PC5 link with the peer remote UE (a unicast link (which may be a PC5 link, according to [0083]) between a UE and a first relay UE is initially established, whereby a unicast link is later established between said UE and a second relay UE before the release of the unicast link between said UE and said first relay UE, according to [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng ‘728 with Cheng ‘116 such that a PC5 link with the remote UE is established for the U2U sidelink communication before an establishment of the PC5 link with the peer remote UE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate mission-critical mesh communications (Cheng ‘116: [0065]).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights