throbber
Applicant: InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.
`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-
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket