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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “vicinity” in claim 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As the term “vicinity” lacks a clear upper or outer limit to the range that is considered within a “vicinity”, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 4, 7 and 12 recites ‘or relay’s load’ creating antecedent uncertainty as to specifically what relay is being addressed, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. A suggested amendment would be to recite “or the U2U relay’s load”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP TR 23.752 (herein after GPP)(NPL “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on system enhancement for Proximity based Services (ProSe) in the 5G System (5GS)(Release 17)”, see IDS).
Re claim 1, GPP discloses a method for relay reselection of sidelink communication between a source user equipment and a target user equipment, wherein the sidelink communication (Section 6.8.2.2 – establishing user to user rather than user to network communication) is initially already established via a first U2U relay (Section 6.8.2.2, 6.32.2.2 and Fig 6.32.2.2 step 0), the method comprising:
sending a solicitation message for a relay reselection by a first U2U (User-to-User) relay to at least one U2U relay in the vicinity (6.32.2.2 and Fig 6.32.2.2 steps 1-2; Section 8.4 -relay reselection can be viewed just like redoing the relay selection as described in Sol#8; 6.8.2.2 step 1); and
sending a response message to respond to the solicitation message (6.32.2.2 and Fig 6.32.2.2 steps 1-2; Section 8.4 -relay reselection can be viewed just like redoing the relay selection as described in Sol#8; 6.8.2.2 steps 2-4), by at least one candidate U2U relay among the at least one U2U relay in the vicinity (6.32.2.2 and Fig 6.32.2.2 steps 1-2; Section 8.4 -relay reselection can be viewed just like redoing the relay selection as described in Sol#8; 6.8.2.2 steps 2-4 - broadcast), for relay reselection (6.32.2.2 and Fig 6.32.2.2 steps 1-2; Section 8.4 -relay reselection can be viewed just like redoing the relay selection as described in Sol#8; 6.8.2.2 step 4).
Re claim 2, GPP discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the solicitation message comprises layer 2 ID of both source and target user equipments (Section 7.4 regarding Sol#8, 6.8.2.2 steps 1-4).
Re claim 3, GPP discloses the method according to claim 1, and further wherein the solicitation message comprises an indication of the reply-to address among the source user equipment (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4), the target user equipment (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4) or the first U2U relay (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4), for informing the at least one candidate U2U relay receiving the solicitation information to the source user equipment (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4), the target user equipment (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4 – discovery response and provided info) or the first U2U relay (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4 – discovery response and provided info) the response message is sent (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4 – discovery response and provided info).
Re claim 6, GPP discloses the method according to claim 1, and further wherein the response message comprises layer 2 ID of the at least one candidate U2U relay (6.8.2.2 steps 2-4, 6b).
Re claim 9, GPP discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein during the sending a response message to respond to the solicitation message: - the response message is sent to the first U2U relay (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4 – discovery response based on provided info); or - the response message is sent to the source user equipment (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4 – discovery response based on provided info) or the target user equipment (6.8.2.2 steps 1-4 – discovery response based on provided info).
Re claim 10, GPP discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein after the sending the response message (6.32.2.2 and Fig 6.32.2.2 steps 1-2; Section 8.4 -relay reselection can be viewed just like redoing the relay selection as described in Sol#8; 6.8.2.2 steps 2-4), it comprises: - determining at least one second U2U relay for relay reselection by virtue of the first U2U relay (6.32.2.2 and Fig 6.32.2.2 steps 1-2; Section 8.4 -relay reselection can be viewed just like redoing the relay selection as described in Sol#8; 6.8.2.2 steps 2-4 – additional potential relay options outside of original).
Re claim 11, GPP discloses the method according to claim 10, and further wherein the at least one candidate U2U relay receives the solicitation information and decides to be an applicant for the second U2U relay of the relay reselection (6.32.2.2 and Fig 6.32.2.2 steps 1-2; Section 8.4 -relay reselection can be viewed just like redoing the relay selection as described in Sol#8; 6.8.2.2 steps 2-4 – responses from potential relay options in addition to the original relay).
Re claim 14, GPP discloses the method according to claim 10, and further wherein the determining at least one second U2U relay for relay reselection comprises: - deciding to perform U2U relay reselection by the first U2U relay periodically or when a sidelink failure event (6.32.2.2-1 Step 1 and note 1) or an evolution of radio link condition which leads to either a link failure in the future (6.32.2.2-1 Step 1 and note 1) or the existence of U2U relays with better radio link condition for relaying is detected.
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.
Claims 4-5, 7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GPP (see IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fu (US Pub 20230354144).
Re claim 4, GPP discloses the method according to claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the solicitation message comprises service contextual information regarding service traffic that goes through the first U2U relay, wherein the service contextual information comprise end-to-end (E2E) QoS, or relay's load.
This design is however disclosed by Fu. Fu discloses wherein the solicitation message comprises service contextual information regarding service traffic (Fig. 8a-c; Par 123-125, 130-134, 167) that goes through the first U2U relay (Fig. 8a-c; Par 123-125, 130-134, 167), wherein the service contextual information comprise end-to-end (E2E) QoS (Fig. 8a-c; Par 123-125, 130-134, 167), or relay's load (Fig. 8a-c; Par 123-125, 130-134, 167).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of GPP in order to incorporate the service contextual information of Fu based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance by allowing for the communication and consideration of communication capabilities relevant to the desired metrics of functionality and quality for the communication would be obvious to allow for a consideration and determination a number of factors as the related to the capability of potential relays in order to make a decision or determination that provides the most efficient or effective communication link.
Re claim 5, the combined disclosure of GPP and Fu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 4, and Fu further discloses wherein sending a response message to respond to the solicitation message is based on the service contextual information (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 167).
Re claim 7, GPP discloses the method according to claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the response message comprises service assistance information provided by the candidate U2U relay including the candidate U2U relay's prediction on its performance, wherein the service assistance information comprise end-to-end (E2E) QoS, or relay's load.
This design is however disclosed by Fu. Fu discloses wherein the response message comprises service assistance information provided by the candidate U2U relay (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167) including the candidate U2U relay's prediction on its performance (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167), wherein the service assistance information comprise end-to-end (E2E) QoS (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167), or relay's load (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of GPP in order to incorporate the service contextual information of Fu based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance by allowing for the communication and consideration of communication capabilities relevant to the desired metrics of functionality and quality for the communication would be obvious to allow for a consideration and determination a number of factors as the related to the capability of potential relays in order to make a decision or determination that provides the most efficient or effective communication link.
Re claim 12, the combined disclosure of GPP and Fu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 7, Fu further discloses wherein it further comprises: - making a relay reselection decision (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167) and selecting the at least one second U2U relay for the relay reselection among the at least one candidate U2U relay (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167) based on the service assistance information (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167), wherein the service assistance information comprise end-to-end (E2E) QoS (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167), or relay's load (Fig. 8a-c; 130-134, 136-139, 167).
Re claim 15, GPP discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection above); but fails however to explicitly disclose the embodiment comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising program code to be executed by a processor, the program code being adapted to performance of the method when executed by the processor.
This design is however disclosed by Fu. Fu discloses the embodiment comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium (Par 215, 226, 227-230) storing a computer program comprising program code (Par 215, 226, 227-230) to be executed by a processor (Par 215, 226, 227-230), the program code being adapted to performance of the method (Par 215, 226, 227-230) when executed by the processor (Par 215, 226, 227-230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of GPP in order to incorporate the embodiment design of Fu based on the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this instance it would be obvious and well known apply the capacity for processor based functionality when implementing a given method in a communication field based on the expected nature of other devices in the given environment and allowing for the use of the physical embodiment in specific environments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights