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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20240406790 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 8, Wang taught a first user equipment (UE) (“source UE”) comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one computer memory operably connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (consider generally paragraphs 0089-0091), wherein the operations include:
establishing a PC5 radio resource control (RRC) connection with a second UE (“target UE”) through a relay UE; (consider paragraphs 0038-0039 regarding “establishing a communication link between a source UE, a relay UE, and a target UE” wherein “In operations 2 and 3, after the discovery and selection of the relay UE, the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the source UE and the relay UE and the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the relay UE and the target UE are established respectively”) (consider also paragraphs 0041-0043, specifically “after the secured extended PC5 unicast link is established between source UE and target UE, end-to-end SL DRBs can be configured via PC5 RRC reconfiguration to transmit data traffic between the source UE and the target UE” and “after the secured extended PC5 unicast link is established between source UE and target UE, end-to-end SL DRBs can be configured via PC5 RRC reconfiguration to transmit data traffic between the source UE and the target UE”)
receiving, from the relay UE, split quality of service (QoS) related information; (consider paragraph 0062, specifically “In some embodiments, the serving base station for the source UE (e.g., gNB1) can determine how to split the end-to-end QoS parameters into two parts. If the source UE is in RRC connected state, it can send the end-to-end PC5 QoS to its serving base station gNB1. The gNB1 splits the end-to-end PC5 QoS into two parts: the first part includes the source-side QoS parameters between the source UE and the relay UE, and the second part includes the target-side QoS parameters between the relay UE and the target UE. The gNB1 then sends SL configuration to source UE. The SL configuration includes at least one of the split PC5 QoS information (e.g., the first part and/or the second part), the end-to-end SLRB configuration, the first hop PC5 RLC bearer configuration, and/or the adaptation layer configuration”) (again, consider paragraph 0039, specifically “after the discovery and selection of the relay UE, the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the source UE and the relay UE and the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the relay UE and the target UE are established respectively”)
reporting, to a base station (BS), the split QoS related information received from the relay UE; receiving, from the BS, resource allocation information determined based on the split QoS related information; and transmitting, to the second UE via the relay UE, data through a resource corresponding to the resource allocation information. (consider paragraphs 0049-0051, specifically “When the source UE is in RRC connected state, the source UE reports, at operation 601, the end-to-end QoS information, the source-side PC5 QoS parameters for each target UE, and/or the relay UE information to its base station (e.g., gNB) to obtain sidelink configuration from the gNB. Specifically, the source UE reports QoS information of a list of PC5 QoS flows to gNB. The list of PC5 QoS flows includes at least one of QoS Flow Identifier (QFI), end-to-end PC5 QoS profile, and/or source side PC5 QoS profile of each PC5 QoS flow. The source side PC5 QoS profile includes at least one of the PQI, the resource type, the priority level, the PDB, the PER, the averaging window, the maximum data burst volume, the range, the Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR), and/or the Minimum Flow Bit Rate (MFBR)” and “Taking the information into account, the gNB that serves the source UE performs sidelink configuration of each target UE. Specifically, the sidelink configuration per target UE can include at least one of: end-to-end SL DRB configuration (including end-to-end SL SDAP and PDCP configuration), PC5 RLC bearer configuration of the first hop (on the source side), adaptation layer configuration, SL mode 1 resource allocation, and/or SL configured grant type 1 resource allocation” wherein “The PC5 RLC bearer configuration can include the associated PC5 QoS (e.g., at least one of the PDB, the PER, the PQI, the priority level, the resource type, the averaging window, and/or the maximum data burst volume)” and “If the relay UE is also in the RRC connected state, the relay UE can report assistance information to the gNB and/or acquire SL relay configuration from its gNB at operation 604” wherein “to assist the gNB to determine configuration information (e.g., for the second hop SL configuration), the relay UE can acquire and report to gNB at least one of the PC5 RLC bearer configuration of first hop (e.g., ingress PC5 RLC bearer configuration), the mapping between the PC5 QoS flows and end-to-end SL DRBs, or the mapping between the end-to-end SL DRBs and PC5 RLC bearer from source UE. In addition, the relay UE can report the end-to-end PC5 QoS and/or the target side PC5 QoS parameters to its gNB. Such information can be obtained by the relay UE from the source via PC5 RRC signaling”)
Regarding claim 10, Wang taught the first UE of claim 8, wherein the split QoS related information is obtained by the relay UE based on splitting a QoS value for a PC5 link between the first UE and the second UE. (consider paragraph 0048, specifically “This embodiment discloses techniques related to the QoS control for UE-to-UE relay scenario. For the UE-to-UE relay scenario, the source UE decides the end-to-end QoS parameters between the source UE and the target UE based on the application layer requirements. The end-to-end QoS parameters, especially the Packet Delay Budget (PDB), needs to be split between the two hops (e.g., the two PC5 interfaces). In some embodiments, the relay UE splits the end-to-end QoS parameters into two parts: the first part includes the source-side QoS parameters between the source UE and the relay UE, and the second part includes the target-side QoS parameters between the relay UE and the target UE. The relay UE ensures the PDB and Packet Error Rate (PER) associated with the PQI in the source-side QoS parameters and the PDB and PER associated with the PQI in the target-side QoS parameters support the end-to-end PDB requirements between source UE and target UE.”) (again, consider further paragraph 0062, specifically “In some embodiments, the serving base station for the source UE (e.g., gNB1) can determine how to split the end-to-end QoS parameters into two parts. If the source UE is in RRC connected state, it can send the end-to-end PC5 QoS to its serving base station gNB1. The gNB1 splits the end-to-end PC5 QoS into two parts: the first part includes the source-side QoS parameters between the source UE and the relay UE, and the second part includes the target-side QoS parameters between the relay UE and the target UE. The gNB1 then sends SL configuration to source UE. The SL configuration includes at least one of the split PC5 QoS information (e.g., the first part and/or the second part), the end-to-end SLRB configuration, the first hop PC5 RLC bearer configuration, and/or the adaptation layer configuration”) (again, consider paragraph 0039, specifically “after the discovery and selection of the relay UE, the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the source UE and the relay UE and the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the relay UE and the target UE are established respectively”)
Regarding claim 11, Wang taught the first UE of claim 8, wherein the first UE transmits traffic pattern and QoS information to the relay UE, and the traffic pattern and the QoS information are reported to the BS serving the relay UE. (again, consider paragraphs 0049-0051, specifically “When the source UE is in RRC connected state, the source UE reports, at operation 601, the end-to-end QoS information, the source-side PC5 QoS parameters for each target UE, and/or the relay UE information to its base station (e.g., gNB) to obtain sidelink configuration from the gNB. Specifically, the source UE reports QoS information of a list of PC5 QoS flows to gNB. The list of PC5 QoS flows includes at least one of QoS Flow Identifier (QFI), end-to-end PC5 QoS profile, and/or source side PC5 QoS profile of each PC5 QoS flow. The source side PC5 QoS profile includes at least one of the PQI, the resource type, the priority level, the PDB, the PER, the averaging window, the maximum data burst volume, the range, the Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR), and/or the Minimum Flow Bit Rate (MFBR)” and “Taking the information into account, the gNB that serves the source UE performs sidelink configuration of each target UE. Specifically, the sidelink configuration per target UE can include at least one of: end-to-end SL DRB configuration (including end-to-end SL SDAP and PDCP configuration), PC5 RLC bearer configuration of the first hop (on the source side), adaptation layer configuration, SL mode 1 resource allocation, and/or SL configured grant type 1 resource allocation” wherein “The PC5 RLC bearer configuration can include the associated PC5 QoS (e.g., at least one of the PDB, the PER, the PQI, the priority level, the resource type, the averaging window, and/or the maximum data burst volume)” and “If the relay UE is also in the RRC connected state, the relay UE can report assistance information to the gNB and/or acquire SL relay configuration from its gNB at operation 604” wherein “to assist the gNB to determine configuration information (e.g., for the second hop SL configuration), the relay UE can acquire and report to gNB at least one of the PC5 RLC bearer configuration of first hop (e.g., ingress PC5 RLC bearer configuration), the mapping between the PC5 QoS flows and end-to-end SL DRBs, or the mapping between the end-to-end SL DRBs and PC5 RLC bearer from source UE. In addition, the relay UE can report the end-to-end PC5 QoS and/or the target side PC5 QoS parameters to its gNB. Such information can be obtained by the relay UE from the source via PC5 RRC signaling”)
Regarding claim 12, Wang taught the first UE of claim 8, wherein the split QoS related information includes a packet delay budget (PDB). (again, consider paragraph 0048, specifically “This embodiment discloses techniques related to the QoS control for UE-to-UE relay scenario. For the UE-to-UE relay scenario, the source UE decides the end-to-end QoS parameters between the source UE and the target UE based on the application layer requirements. The end-to-end QoS parameters, especially the Packet Delay Budget (PDB), needs to be split between the two hops (e.g., the two PC5 interfaces). In some embodiments, the relay UE splits the end-to-end QoS parameters into two parts: the first part includes the source-side QoS parameters between the source UE and the relay UE, and the second part includes the target-side QoS parameters between the relay UE and the target UE. The relay UE ensures the PDB and Packet Error Rate (PER) associated with the PQI in the source-side QoS parameters and the PDB and PER associated with the PQI in the target-side QoS parameters support the end-to-end PDB requirements between source UE and target UE.”)
Regarding claim 14, Wang taught the first UE of claim 8, wherein the first UE corresponds to a source UE, and the second UE corresponds to a target UE. (again, consider paragraphs 0038-0039 regarding “establishing a communication link between a source UE, a relay UE, and a target UE” wherein “In operations 2 and 3, after the discovery and selection of the relay UE, the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the source UE and the relay UE and the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the relay UE and the target UE are established respectively”)
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 recite an operation method that contain substantially the same limitations as recited in claims 8, 10-12, and 14 respectively and are also rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the same teachings of Wang.
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) 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of US 20240430747 A1 to Paladugu et al. (“Paladugu”) .
Regarding claim 9, Wang taught the first UE of claim 8.
Wang may be interpreted as not expressly teaching wherein the first UE operates in resource allocation mode 1.
However, in an analogous art relating to UE-to-UE relay within a wireless communication network, Paladugu taught that a first UE may operate in resource allocation mode 1 in conjunction with establishing a PC5 RRC connection with a second UE (“remote UE”) through a relay UE by the first UE. (consider paragraph 0140, specifically “In some implementations, a relay UE, or a remote UE, or both may perform mode 1 resource allocation in which the RAN may configure and indicate the resources to the respective UEs. For example, such as in mode 1 resource allocation, a relay UE may request resources from the base station for establishing a sidelink connection with a remote UE, where the request may indicate the remote UE and a QoS associated with the remote UE”) (consider further paragraph 0158 wherein “UE 115-e is operating in accordance with a resource allocation mode 1 when the first connection is a sidelink connection type”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of these references such that their combination includes every element as claimed. One skilled in the art could have combined the teachings by known methods such as integration of software routines with no changes to the operation of either reference such that, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Additionally, Examiner finds that, based on the references' analogous disclosure regarding UE-to-UE relay within a wireless communication network, further demonstrates that a combination of their features would have been known and obvious. Therefore, such a combination of the teachings of the references would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 recites an operation method that contains substantially the same limitations as recited in claim 9 and is also rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over the same combined teachings of Wang and Paladugu and the same rationale supporting the conclusion of obviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of US 20200288344 A1 to Zhang et al. (“Zhang”).
Regarding claim 13, Wang taught the first UE of claim 8.
Wang may be interpreted as not expressly teaching wherein the split QoS related information is reported through SidelinkUEInformation.
However, in an analogous art relating to UE-to-UE relay within a wireless communication network, Zhang taught that information being reported through SidelinkUEInformation was known in the art (consider paragraph 0009, specifically “In the existing mechanism, in the V2X communication, the UE may use resources on multiple carriers to send and receive data on a sidelink. The V2X service type corresponding to each V2X data is usually associated with one or more available frequency points. A higher layer may send a destination ID corresponding to different V2X service types to an AS layer. When the connected UE requests the V2X SL resource configuration, it can report the destination ID of the service corresponding to each frequency point to the base station through SidelinkUEInformation”) and using SidelinkUEInformation may be used in conjunction with split QoS related information being transmitted between a first UE and a base station. (consider paragraph 0127, specifically that “a UE1 needs to perform broadcasting of a service type 1” wherein “the UE1 still needs to report a set of destination IDs and other optional frequency point set information corresponding to a logical channel and a split indication” such that “after receiving report information from the UE1, a base station allocates resources on the corresponding frequency point for the UE1”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of these references such that their combination includes every element as claimed. One skilled in the art could have combined the teachings by known methods such as integration of software routines with no changes to the operation of either reference such that, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Additionally, Examiner finds that, based on the references' analogous disclosure regarding UE-to-UE relay within a wireless communication network, further demonstrates that a combination of their features would have been known and obvious. Therefore, such a combination of the teachings of the references would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 recites an operation method that contains substantially the same limitations as recited in claim 13 and is also rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over the same combined teachings of Wang and Zhang and the same rationale supporting the conclusion of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the instant response have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to primarily argue that Wang fails to teach or suggest the amended limitations of “receiving, from the relay UE, split quality of service (QoS) related information”, “reporting, to a base station (BS), the split QoS related information received from the relay UE” and “receiving, from the BS, resource allocation information determined based on the split QoS related information”.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant supports such by arguing that “Amended claim 1 requires a specific information flow in which: (i) the relay UE provides split QoS related information to the first UE; and (ii) the first UE reports to the BS the split QoS related information that the first UE received from the relay UE. These features expressly identify the provenance of the reported information: the reported split QoS related information is the information received from the relay UE” and “Wang does not disclose this claimed information flow” since “Paragraph [0062], however, discloses a materially different information flow. Specifically, Wang's paragraph [0062] discloses that the serving base station of the source UE, gNB1, splits end-to-end PC5 QoS parameters into source-side QoS parameters and target-side QoS parameters. The gNB1 then sends sidelink configuration, which may include the split PC5 QoS information, to the source UE. Thereafter, Wang's source UE sends the split PC5 QoS information to the relay UE. Thus, in Wang's paragraph [0062], the source UE receives the split QoS information from its serving base station-not from the relay UE. Moreover, the source UE transmits the split QoS information to the relay UE, which is the opposite of the direction required by amended claim 1. Wang's paragraph [0062] therefore does not disclose the claimed "receiving, from the relay UE, split QoS related information.”
However, paragraph 0039 of Wang which was cited within the rejection specifically states that: “In operations 2 and 3, after the discovery and selection of the relay UE, the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the source UE and the relay UE and the connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the relay UE and the target UE are established respectively. If the establishment of any one of the connections fails, the relay UE can inform the remote UE(s) of the failure. For example, if the establishment of the second hop connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link between the relay UE and target UE) fails, the relay UE informs the source UE of the failure.” (Examiner’s emphasis added.)
Wang and the claimed invention clearly both teach and require respectively the use of a “relay UE”. This “relay UE” is taught in Wang throughout, but specifically that “In some cases (e.g., in the event of a catastrophe or emergency), the cellular network cannot work normally. In order to expand the coverage range of the sidelink communication, multi-hop relay using one or more UE devices can be adopted. As shown in FIG. 1, UE 113 communicates with UE 114 through UE 115. Here, UE 115 can be referred to as the UE-to-UE relay device, and UE 113 and 114 can be referred to as remote UEs”. (paragraph 0033)
Wang also taught that “In some embodiments, if two remote UE devices (e.g., a source UE and a target UE) are not in the sidelink communication range of each other, they can locate a third UE that is capable of UE-to-UE relay communication and within the communication range of both to forward sidelink traffic for them. Before the user data transmission, the source UE and the target UE need to discovery each other via the relay UE and establish an extended communication link via the relay UE (e.g., PC5 unicast link). In addition, the remote UEs and the relay UE need to prepare transmission channels (e.g., PC5 RLC channels) among themselves for relaying sidelink traffic.” (paragraph 0036)
Paragraph 0048 further enhances the shown teachings by teaching that “This embodiment discloses techniques related to the QoS control for UE-to-UE relay scenario…The end-to-end QoS parameters, especially the Packet Delay Budget (PDB), needs to be split between the two hops (e.g., the two PC5 interfaces). In some embodiments, the relay UE splits the end-to-end QoS parameters into two parts: the first part includes the source-side QoS parameters between the source UE and the relay UE, and the second part includes the target-side QoS parameters between the relay UE and the target UE. The relay UE ensures the PDB and Packet Error Rate (PER) associated with the PQI in the source-side QoS parameters and the PDB and PER associated with the PQI in the target-side QoS parameters support the end-to-end PDB requirements between source UE and target UE. The relay UE also ensures other QoS parameters/QoS characteristics in the source-side QoS parameters and the target-side QoS parameters are compatible. For example, the source-side QoS parameters and the target-side QoS parameters can have the same values for compatibility. In some embodiments, the relay UE's decision can be based on the local policy or the low layer measurements.” (Examiner’s emphasis added.)
As also previously shown, paragraph 0049 of Wang further taught that “When the source UE is in RRC connected state, the source UE reports, at operation 601, the end-to-end QoS information, the source-side PC5 QoS parameters for each target UE, and/or the relay UE information to its base station (e.g., gNB) to obtain sidelink configuration from the gNB. Specifically, the source UE reports QoS information of a list of PC5 QoS flows to gNB. The list of PC5 QoS flows includes at least one of QoS Flow Identifier (QFI), end-to-end PC5 QoS profile, and/or source side PC5 QoS profile of each PC5 QoS flow. The source side PC5 QoS profile includes at least one of the PQI, the resource type, the priority level, the PDB, the PER, the averaging window, the maximum data burst volume, the range, the Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR), and/or the Minimum Flow Bit Rate (MFBR). The relay UE information includes at least a Layer 2 (L2) identifier of the relay UE and/or the relay UE's serving cell ID, NR Cell Global Identifier (NCGI), gNB ID, and/or Cell Global Identifier (CGI).”. (Examiner’s emphasis added.)
Paragraph 0051 of Wang also further taught that “If the relay UE is also in the RRC connected state, the relay UE can report assistance information to the gNB and/or acquire SL relay configuration from its gNB at operation 604 The SL relay configuration can include the adaptation layer configuration and PC5 RLC bearer configuration of the second hop between relay UE and target UE (e.g., egress PC5 RLC bearer). In some embodiments, to assist the gNB to determine configuration information (e.g., for the second hop SL configuration), the relay UE can acquire and report to gNB at least one of the PC5 RLC bearer configuration of first hop (e.g., ingress PC5 RLC bearer configuration), the mapping between the PC5 QoS flows and end-to-end SL DRBs, or the mapping between the end-to-end SL DRBs and PC5 RLC bearer from source UE. In addition, the relay UE can report the end-to-end PC5 QoS and/or the target side PC5 QoS parameters to its gNB. Such information can be obtained by the relay UE from the source via PC5 RRC signaling”. (Examiner’s emphasis added.)
Furthermore, in addition to the above, paragraph 0054 of Wang also further enhances the teachings of Wang by also teaching that “In some embodiments, when receiving QoS information and relay UE information from the source UE, the gNB1 that is the serving base station of the source UE recognizes gNB2, the serving base station of the relay UE. FIG. 7 illustrates an example signaling sequence between the base stations, the source UE, and the relay UE in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present technology. At operation 701, the source UE reports the end-to-end QoS information, the source-side PC5 QoS parameters for each target UE, and the relay UE information to gNB1 to obtain sidelink configuration from the gNB1. Specifically, the source UE reports QoS information of a list of PC5 QoS flows to gNB1. The list of PC5 QoS flows includes at least one of QFI, end-to-end PC5 QoS profile, and/or source side PC5 QoS profile of each PC5 QoS flow. The source side PC5 QoS profile includes at least one of the PQI, the resource type, the priority level, the PDB, the PER, the averaging window, the maximum data burst volume, the range, the GFBR, and/or the MFBR. The gNB1 sends SL configuration information to the source UE accordingly at operation 702.” (Examiner’s emphasis added.)
These teachings of Wang make clear that there is, in fact, a transfer of the required “split QoS related information” from the relay UE to the first UE after the RRC connection is established and that “split QoS related information” is reported by the first UE to a base station and that resource allocation information” “determined based on the split QoS related information” is “received” “from the BS” as required by the claim.
Applicant appears to conflate in the arguments that the element “split QoS related information” must be “split QoS” “information” that the relay UE somehow solely provides to the first UE. However, the claim at best merely requires the “information” be “related”, therefore, there is no requirement that the “information” must be “QoS split” “information”. Also, nowhere within the claims is it required that the split QoS related information be actually generated by the “relay UE”, only that the information be “received” “from” the relay UE.
Wang also shows that the “relay UE” is meant to establish a “connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the source UE and the relay UE” and a “connection (e.g., PC5 unicast link) between the relay UE and the target UE” and teaches these separate connections throughout, therefore, it may be reasonably interpreted that the first UE has access to at least these “source side QoS parameters” before being reported to the base station (BS) and was provided by the relay UE after the RRC connection has been established with the relay UE so that the first UE can receive the resource allocation information which is determined based on the split QoS related information in order to effect the transmission of data to the second UE via the relay UE through a resource corresponding to the resource allocation information as required.
Therefore, Wang may be reasonably interpreted to show that the relay UE at least provides “source side QoS parameters” to the first UE which at least related to the “split QoS” functionality handled by the relay UE as shown in paragraph 0048 which the first UE then “reports” to the BS which, as Wang shows, is involved in the “split QoS” functionality and the BS uses that report to determine “resource allocation information” (or “sidelink configuration”/“SL configuration information” as shown in Wang) to send to the first UE.
Applicant then continues to argue, inter alia, that “The claimed features, in contrast, expressly describes that the relay UE informs the transmitting remote UE of the split QoS value and that the transmitting remote UE reports the split QoS value set by the relay UE to its serving BS, so that the serving BS may allocate a resource grant based on that split QoS value.”
However, this argument improperly imports limitations into the claims that are not required. Nothing within the claim requires “the relay UE” “inform” “the transmitting remote UE of the split QoS value” or “the transmitting remote UE” “report” “the split QoS value set by the relay UE to its serving BS” as argued within the limitations of “receiving, from the relay UE, split quality of service (QoS) related information” and “reporting, to a base station (BS), the split QoS related information received from the relay UE”.
In conclusion, Examiner submits that the amended claimed invention are met by the teachings of Wang as shown and as required by the claims.
Therefore, the rejection under Wang is maintained. While the rejection has been updated to reflect the instant amendments, Examiner finds that the entirety of the teachings of Wang continue to anticipate the claimed invention as amended.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G. C. Neurauter, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-3918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/G. C. Neurauter, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights