DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant Office Action is in response to communication filed on 7/11/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 9 and 10 are the base independent claims. Claims 1, 8, 9 and 10 are amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Regarding claim 1, Applicant files the Remark: see pages 6-7.
Applicant explains the amended limitation is about all UEs connected to the reporting within the base station’s coverage. Such that, neither Kim nor Suzuki discloses the subject matter as asserted by Applicant. Applicant further argues Suzuki does not disclose that a BS determines a radio link failure. Instead, Suzuki discloses, “while the base station may later act on this information (e.g., initiating a handover or identifying new relays), the failure is first and foremost detected by the relay, which is a participant in the affected link.”
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully clarifies that Suzuki’s base station discloses the claimed limitation. Suzuki, in paragraph [0038], discloses that the indicator may include “a measure of serving cell quality.” In paragraph [0050], Suzuki discloses the base station may detect one or more indicators of an expected service interruption of the communication link between the relay 135 and the BS 120, and the link between the relay 135 and the remote UE 130. In paragraph [0051], the indicators detected by the BS 120 may include indication that the Uu link quality is below a predetermined threshold. The indication detected by the base station 120 may also include indicator of conditions local to the relay 135. For example in a message from the relay 135 to the base station 120 (not shown) prior to detection of the indicator(s) by the base station 120. Therefore, Examiner believes the base station of Suzuki is capable of determining a radio link failure based on a measurement result included in the channel state information being less than a threshold. Moreover, the combination of Kim and Suzuki also discloses transmitting, to all of UEs connected with the first UE in a coverage of the BS, a radio link failure indication of the first UE and the second UE based on the determination. This is because base station 120 of Suzuki at least discloses transmitting a message indicating service interruption to relay 135 based on the detection at step 405, wherein the relay UE is related to remote UE 130 (see Suzuki, fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 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 claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9 and 10, the amended limitations recite “transmitting, to all of UEs connected with the first UE in a coverage of the BS, a radio link failure indication…” In the Applicant’s disclosure (i.e. US 2022/0338301), the best relevant paragraph (i.e. [0204]) depicts only that the BS may indicate the SL RLF to all UEs related to the SL RLF within its coverage as well as the UE reporting the SL measurement result. Therefore, Examiner does not find the recent amended limitation, “all of UEs connected” (emphasis added), being supported by the specification since all of UEs connected with the first UE may cover other types of UEs that are not related to the SL RLF. For examining purpose, the claimed feature is interpreted explicitly as in the paragraph of the specification. Dependent claims are also rejected as being dependent to rejected base claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0044956, at least supported by Foreign Application Priority Date Aug 9, 2019) in view of Suzuki et al (US 2017/0013653).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method of performing an operation by a base station (BS) in a wireless communication system (fig. 7), the method comprising:
receiving channel state information on a radio link state with a second user equipment (UE) from a first UE (par 186; when a radio link failure occurs for a sidelink channel, the terminal may transmit control information informing the corresponding situation to the base station; the control information reported may be a CSI/CQI report; the base station may determine that the BFD, BFR, or RLF has occurred; also see par 92,120-121 and 162-172); and
transmitting, to the first UE, a radio link failure for the first UE based on the determination (par 186-187; e.g. the base station receiving the control information may transmit to the corresponding terminal control information for releasing or deactivating SLRB configuration or SL radio resource allocation for the sidelink channel of the corresponding terminal).
Although the reference discloses measuring signal qualities of radio links and the base station may determine the RLF based on a report of the measuring, the reference does not explicitly disclose transmitting to all of UEs connected with the first UE in a coverage of the BS the indication for the first UE and the second UE (emphasis added), and the reference does not explicitly disclose:
determining a radio link failure based on a measurement result included in the channel state information being less than a threshold during a predetermined period (emphasis added).
However, it is obvious in view of Suzuki because Suzuki discloses:
transmitting, to all of UEs connected with the first UE in a coverage of the BS (fig. 4; e.g. relay UE 135 that is in the coverage of base station 120), a radio link failure indication for the first UE and the second UE based on the determination (fig. 4 & par 50-54; e.g. the base station 120 may detect one or more indicators of an expected service interruption associated with at least one of the communication link between the relay 135 and the base station 120 (or more generally the network) and the communication link between the relay 135 and the remote UE 130…the base station 120 may transmit a message to the relay 135 indicating that a service interruption is expected…may cause the relay 135 to relay the same message to the remote UE 130; Also see par 38. Thus, the failure is for the relay UE and the remote UE).
Suzuki further discloses:
determining a radio link failure based on a measurement result included in the channel state information being less than a threshold (par 38, par 50-51, the indicator(s) detected by the base station 120 may include indication that the Uu link quality is below a predetermined threshold; wherein the indication detected by the base station 120 may also include indicator of conditions local to the relay 135. For example in a message from the relay 135 to the base station 120 (not shown) prior to detection of the indicator(s) by the base station 120) during a predetermined period (par 38; may also detect that RLF is imminent, e.g. receipt of at least a predetermined number of out-of-sync indications, or a timer indicative of imminent radio link failure is active, hence a predetermined period).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Suzuki with the electronic system of Kim. One is motivated as such to cause the remote UE to initiate one or more actions to reduce or avoid the expected service interruption (Suzuki, par 55).
Regarding claims 8-10, Kim and Suzuki also disclose a base station, a processor or a CRM for performing the method of claim 1 (see Kim, par 49).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses:
releasing resources allocated to the first UE and the second UE based on the sidelink radio link failure indication (par 187; e.g. the base station receiving the control information may transmit to the corresponding terminal control information for releasing or deactivating SLRB configuration or SL radio resource allocation for the sidelink channel of the corresponding terminal).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses:
wherein the sidelink channel state information includes at least one of a reference signal received power (RSRP), a reference signal received quality (RSRQ), or a channel quality indicator (CQI) measured based on a signal transmitted to the first UE by the second UE (par 38; e.g. link quality or strength on the PC5 interface has degraded below a threshold).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses:
wherein the first UE and the second UE release a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) connection based on the sidelink radio link failure indication (par 159, PC5-RRC connection release).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses:
wherein the radio link failure indication is transmitted through at least one of an RRC message, a media access control (MAC) control element (CE), or a physical channel (par 186; MAC CE or RRC).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409