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 .
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (US 2023/0422141)
Regarding Claim 21, Chang teaches a method of user equipment (UE) comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), a DCR (Direct Communication Request) message from a remote UE (¶ [0026], see specifically discovery message);
measuring, by the UE, a signal strength of the DCR message (¶ [0024], see specifically SD-RSRP based on discovery messages.)
based on the signal strength of the DCR message being above a predetermined threshold, performing, by the UE, a UE to UE relay UE operation (¶ [0028], see specifically new PC5 connection.)
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.
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) 14-16, 18, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT (S2-2202323) in view of Chang (US 2023/0422141)
Regarding Claims 14 and 22, CATT teaches a method of user equipment (UE) comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) the UE, a discovery message from a remote UE (Page 3, ¶ 3, see specifically receives a direct communication request or solicitation message)
based on the radio conditions, forwarding, by the UE, the discovery message (page 3, ¶ 3, see specifically decide whether to forward the message)
Catt fails to explicitly teach measuring, by the UE, a signal strength of the discovery message;
based on the signal strength of the discovery message being above a predetermined threshold, forwarding, by the UE, the discovery message.
Chang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches measuring, by the UE, a signal strength of the discovery message (¶ [0024], see specifically SD-RSRP based on the discovery messages).
based on the signal strength of the discovery message being above a predetermined threshold, forwarding, by the UE, the discovery message (¶ [0024], see specifically SD-RSRP based on the discovery messages).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use the SD-RSRP within the discovery message in the system of CATT as taught by Chang.
The motivation is that CATT is a 3GPP document to develop the specific technology, and does not define how to measure the channel conditions between the source and relay UE. Using reference signals and using the RSRP of the reference signals would allow the system of CATT to measure the strength and quality of the transmission and would allow the relay to decide whether to participate.
Regarding Claim 15, CATT teaches the UE performs a UE to UE relay UE operation (page 3, figure 6.A.2.1-1, see specifically the UE1, the relays and UE2).
Regarding Claim 16, CATT teaches the discovery message is discovery solicitation message (Page 3, ¶ 3, see specifically receives a direct communication request or solicitation message)
Regarding Claim 18, CATT teaches the UE performs a UE to UE relay UE operation, based on that the remote UE request a service that is supported by the UE (page 3, ¶ 3, see specifically application ID, authorization policy specific to a service).
Regarding Claim 20, CATT teaches the UE performs a UE to UE relay UE operation, based on that a PDB (Packet Delay Budget) of the discovery message does not exceed a second predetermined value (Page 13, 6.D.1. ¶4, see specifically relay ensures PDB).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT (S2-2202323) in view of Chang (US 2023/0422141) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2023/0141478).
Regarding Claim 17, CATT fails to explicitly teach the UE performs a UE to UE relay UE operation, based on the signal strength of the discovery message being above the predetermined threshold and being below another threshold.
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor teach the UE performs a UE to UE relay UE operation, based on the signal strength of the discovery message being above the predetermined threshold and being below another threshold (¶ [0055], see specifically PC5 interface maximum and minimum thresholds for RSRP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to obey minimum and maximum thresholds for signal strength in the system of CATT as taught by Zhang.
The motivation is that too high or low of a signal strength can reduce performance, it would therefore be obvious to set both upper and lower limits to signal strength to improve it.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT (S2-2202323) in view of Chang (US 2023/0422141) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Aoyagi (U.S. 2025/0080203)
Regarding Claim 19, CATT fails to explicitly teach wherein the UE performs a UE to UE relay UE operation, based on that the number of link established by the UE does not exceed a first predetermined value.
Aoyagi from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the UE performs a UE to UE relay UE operation, based on that the number of link established by the UE does not exceed a first predetermined value (¶ [0052], see specifically number of connected UE’s).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to limit the number of UE’s being relayed in the system of CATT as taught by Aoyagi.
The motivation is partially provided by CATT on page 3, in ¶ 3, where it discusses that the relay may not forward the message based on traffic load of the relay UE. The number of connected UE’s to any given relay would be a similar concern as each connected UE would add load to the relay and it would be obvious to limit the number of connected UE’s for that reason by the local policy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights