`Application N0.: 15/413,072
`
`REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
`
`After the foregoing Amendment, claims 1-2, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are
`
`currently pending in this application with claims 1, 11 and 16 being independent.
`
`Claims 3-7, 13 and 18 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are amended.
`
`Claim Reiections — 35 USC § 112
`
`Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35
`
`U.S.C. 112 (Pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
`
`description requirement. The applicant submits that after the forgoing amendment
`
`the rejection is moot as the identified language has been removed from the
`
`independent claims.
`
`Withdrawal for the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (Pre-AIA), first
`
`paragraph, rejection of claims , 2, 8-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Reiections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over to Yu et al. (US 2011/0098043) (hereinafter Yu)
`
`in View of Pirzada et al. (US 2006/007 3847) (hereinafter Pirzada), Hakola et al. (US
`
`2013/0013926)
`
`(hereinafter Hakola), and Van Phan et al. US 2015/0289125)
`
`(hereinafter Van Phan ‘125).
`
`
`
`Applicant: InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.
`Application N0.: 15/413,072
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Yu, Pirzada and Hakola, and Van Phan ‘125 as applied to claim 1 above, and
`
`further in view of Van Phan et al. (US 2015/0065154) (hereinafter Van Phan ‘154).
`
`Claims 10, 14, and 19, are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Yu, Pirzada and Hakola, and Van Phan ‘125 as applied to
`
`claims 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Fodor et al. (US 2014/0122607)
`
`(hereinafter Fodor).
`
`Applicant respectively traverses the rejection and submits that as amended
`
`independent claims 1, 11, and 16 recite features not taught, suggested, or otherwise
`
`yielded by the cited references. Specifically, amended claims 1, 11 and 16 each that
`
`the request message includes an “application layer ID that is an identification of the
`
`second WLAN ProSe Capable WTRU”. The Applicant respectfully submits that Yu
`
`does not teach this or suggest this element. Yu specifically teaches the use of
`
`“network-allocated” identifiers “D2D ID#B”, which is not an “application layer ID”
`
`as is required by the pending claims. Further, nothing in Pirzada, or Hakola cure
`
`this deficiency.
`
`The office action has further identified paragraphs 16, 21, and 28 of Van
`
`Phan as teaching that the request message includes an application layer ID that
`
`identifies the second WLAN ProSe Capable WTRU.
`
`In fact, Van Phan provides in
`
`paragraph 21 that, “... [i]t may be understood that the base station 104 handles the
`
`configuration of the proximity services up to radio resource control (RRC) layer, the
`
`MME 132 handles the identifier allocation and other related functions, and the
`
`_ 9 _
`
`
`
`Applicant: InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.
`Application N0.: 15/413,072
`
`PSRC server 134 handles higher layer (application level) configuration of the
`
`proximity services, e.g.
`
`initiation and termination of the proximity services.”
`
`Accordingly, it appears that the identifiers are handled by the MME, while the
`
`application level communication is handled by the PSRC server. Nowhere in Van
`
`Phan is a request message including an application layer ID of a second WLAN
`
`ProSe WTRU suggested or described.
`
`Further, as amended independent claims 1, 11 and 16 each teach that the
`
`configuration information includes a WLAN ProSe ID and a security key for use in
`
`establishing the WLAN ProSe connection. Yu does not teach or suggest sending
`
`configuration information over cellular that includes a WLAN ProSe ID and a
`
`security Key.
`
`The Office Action has cited Pirzada as teaching this element,
`
`however, Pirzada merely provides a list of parameters for an infrastructure mode
`
`and parameters for an adhoc mode, however, Pirzada is silent with respect to how
`
`the parameters for adhoc mode would be signaled and certainly does not
`
`contemplate sending them over cellular.
`
`The Office Action has also cited Hakola as teaching that the configuration
`
`message is an implicit
`
`indication to establish the WLAN ProSe connection.
`
`However, Hakola teaches that a communication mode change command may
`
`include D2D security key information; however, Hakola’s communication mode
`
`change command does not include any of the other configuration information as is
`
`required by the claims, and it is not clear that a ProSe connection could be
`
`established solely by the Hakola’s communication mode change command, there for
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Applicant: InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.
`Application N0.: 15/413,072
`
`Hakola’s communication mode change command is not the same as the presently
`
`claimed configuration information.
`
`Accordingly, none of the 4 references cited teach or suggest either of a request
`
`message that include “an application layer ID” of a second ProSe Capable WTRU, or
`
`a configuration message that includes, “a WLAN ProSe ID... a security key, a
`
`frequency or channel number, a beacon interval and timing information” as is
`
`required by the independent claims, and amended claims 1, 11, and 16 are not
`
`obvious over the cited art of record, and the Applicant believes these claims are
`
`allowable over all cited references of record.
`
`Claims 2, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 20 are ultimately dependent on one of
`
`claims 1, 11 and 16, which the Applicant believes are patentable as set forth above.
`
`As claims 2, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 20 each depend from an allowable claim,
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 20 are
`
`similarly allowable.
`
`Based on the arguments presented above, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`rejections of the claims is respectfully requested.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Applicant: InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.
`Application N0.: 15/413,072
`
`Conclusion
`
`If the Examiner believes that any additional minor formal matters need to be
`
`addressed in order to place this application in condition for allowance, or that a
`
`telephonic interview will help to materially advance the prosecution of this
`
`application, the Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned by telephone at the
`
`Examiner's convenience.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that the present
`
`application,
`
`including claims 1, 2, 8-12, 14-17, 19 and 20,
`
`is in condition for
`
`allowance and a notice to that effect is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.
`
`By /Wesley T. McMichael/
`Wesley T. McMichael
`Registration No. 56,982
`
`Volpe and Koenig, PC.
`30 South 17th Street, 18th Fl.
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-4009
`Telephone: (215) 568-6400
`Facsimile:
`(215) 568-6499
`
`WTM/srp
`
`-12-
`
`