DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed December 8, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 13, and 27 have been amended.
Claims 5-6, 12, 14-15, 19, 21-26, and 28 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, 27, and 29 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered.
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 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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 13, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALADUGU et al. (hereinafter Paladugu) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0180076 A1) in view of IM (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0064615 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Paladugu teaches a method for transferring a service and a communication device (communication device/UE, figure 24), comprising: an antenna (antenna, 2410, figure 24); a memory (memory, 2412, figure 24); and a processor (processor, 2404, figure 24), connected with the antenna and the memory respectively, and configured to:
in response to determining that a service switch condition (switch selection criteria) is met, directly triggering by a first terminal (remote UE, figure 5) itself, transfer of service data transmitted between the first terminal and a base station (network entity/gNB, figure 5) to be transmitted between the first terminal and a second terminal (relay UE, figure 5), wherein the second terminal is operating as a relay terminal enabling communication between the first terminal and the base station ([0073]; “…In other cases, the remote UE may decide and initiate the switch using the DL measurements…”; [0074]; “…Upon completion, the switch may include forwarding data from the source connection to the target connection…”; [0085]; “…the remote UE takes action to initiate the switch if the selection criteria are met…”; [0105]; teaches in response to determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met, the first/remote UE itself directly triggers and initiates the switch of the transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB from the first UE via a relay UE; figures 5-6 and 13), wherein the service switch condition comprises: channel quality between the first terminal and the second terminal is higher than a third set threshold within a predetermined time period ([0071]; “…establishing or switching to primarily using sidelink PC5 connections and releasing Uu connections, when selection criteria, such as intra-frequency, inter-frequency, or other status/measurements, are met…”; [0073]; “…a determination whether the criteria for a switch are met…the network may decide when to initiate the switch based on the DL measurements…”; [0088]; [0091]; [0095]; teaches determining that network measurements related to link quality are met over a measurement period which the measurement is made; figures 5-6 and 13)
However, Paladugu may not explicitly disclose wherein the service switch condition comprises: the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Im teaches and suggests wherein the service switch condition comprises: the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold ([0075]; [0076]; teaches determining a switching condition, such as a handover condition, and UE does not search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a predetermined threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining a switching condition, such as a handover condition, and UE does not search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a predetermined threshold as taught by Im with the method and device for determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE as disclosed by Paladugu for the purpose of determining a quality metric for a decision criterion for handover to another cell in order to improve service and quality of communication, as suggested by Im.
Regarding claim 2, Paladugu, as modified by Im, further teaches wherein the service switch condition is sent by the base station; or; the service switch condition is specified by a communication protocol ([0071]; [0073]; [0082]; teaches the criteria is communicated by the network entity/gNB).
Regarding claim 3, Paladugu, as modified by Im, further teaches in response to determining that radio channel quality between the first terminal and the base station is lower than a first set threshold, and that the service switch condition is met, directly triggering, by the first terminal itself, the transfer of the service data transmitted between the first terminal and the base station to be transmitted between the first terminal and the second terminal ([0071]; [0073]; [0091]; [0095]; teaches determining that network measurements related to link quality are lower than a threshold and determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE; figures 5-6 and 13).
Regarding claim 4, Paladugu, as modified by Im, further teaches in response to determining that radio channel quality both between the first terminal and the base station as well as between the first terminal and a neighbor base station (second gNB, figure 5) of the base station is lower than a second set threshold, and that the service switch condition is met, directly triggering, by the first terminal itself, the transfer of the service data transmitted between the first terminal and the base station to be transmitted between the first terminal and the second terminal ([0071]; [0073]; [0091]; [0095]; teaches determining that network measurements related to link quality are lower than a threshold and determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE; figures 5-6 and 13).
Regarding claims 13 and 29, Paladugu teaches a communication device (communication device/UE, figure 24), comprising: an antenna (antenna, 2610, figure 26); a memory (memory, 2612, figure 26); and a processor (processor, 2604, figure 26), connected with the antenna and the memory respectively, and configured to control transceiving of the antenna by executing computer-executable instructions stored on the memory, and be capable of implementing a method for transferring a service, comprising:
sending, by a base station (network entity/gNB, figure 5), a service switch condition (switch selection criteria) to a first terminal (remote UE, figure 5), wherein the service switch condition is configured to cause the first terminal to directly trigger, by itself, in response to determining that the service switch condition is met, transfer of service data to be transmitted between the first terminal and the base station to be transmitted between the first terminal and a second terminal (relay UE, figure 5), wherein the second terminal is operating as a relay terminal (relay UE, figure 5) enabling communication between the first terminal and the base station ([0073]; “…In other cases, the remote UE may decide and initiate the switch using the DL measurements…”; [0074]; “…Upon completion, the switch may include forwarding data from the source connection to the target connection…”; [0085]; “…the remote UE takes action to initiate the switch if the selection criteria are met…”; [0105]; teaches in response to determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met, the first/remote UE itself directly triggers and initiates the switch of the transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB from the first UE via a relay UE; figures 5-6 and 13), wherein the service switch condition comprises: channel quality between the first terminal and the second terminal is higher than a third set threshold within a predetermined time period ([0071]; “…establishing or switching to primarily using sidelink PC5 connections and releasing Uu connections, when selection criteria, such as intra-frequency, inter-frequency, or other status/measurements, are met…”; [0073]; “…a determination whether the criteria for a switch are met…the network may decide when to initiate the switch based on the DL measurements…”; [0088]; [0091]; [0095]; teaches determining that network measurements related to link quality are met over a measurement period which the measurement is made; figures 5-6 and 13)
However, Paladugu may not explicitly disclose wherein the service switch condition comprises: the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Im teaches and suggests wherein the service switch condition comprises: the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold ([0075]; [0076]; teaches determining a switching condition, such as a handover condition, and UE does not search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a predetermined threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining a switching condition, such as a handover condition, and UE does not search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a predetermined threshold as taught by Im with the method and device for determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE as disclosed by Paladugu for the purpose of determining a quality metric for a decision criterion for handover to another cell in order to improve service and quality of communication, as suggested by Im.
Claims 7-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALADUGU et al. (hereinafter Paladugu) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0180076 A1) in view of IM (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0064615 A1), and further in view of BAEK et al. (hereinafter Baek) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0315057 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Paladugu, as modified by Im, discloses determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the information associated with determining the service switch condition by the first terminal comprises at least one of the following: information on a first reference signal for measuring the radio channel quality between the first terminal and the second terminal, measuring type information of the first reference signal, and the third set threshold.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Baek teaches and suggests information on a first reference signal for measuring the radio channel quality between the first terminal and the second terminal, measuring type information of the first reference signal, and the third set threshold ([0155]; [0168]; teaches a first reference signal for measuring channel quality between UEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first reference signal for measuring channel quality between UEs as taught by Baek with the method and device for determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE as disclosed by Paladugu, as modified by Im, for the purpose of determining a quality metric for a decision criterion for connecting to a rely terminal in order to improve service and quality of communication, as suggested by Baek.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Paladugu, as modified by Im, discloses determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the first reference signal is one of: a synchronization signal and PBCH block (SSB) reference signal and or a channel-state information reference signal (CSI-RS).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Baek teaches and suggests wherein the first reference signal is one of: a synchronization signal and PBCH block (SSB) reference signal and or a channel-state information reference signal (CSI-RS) ([0155]; [0168]; teaches a first reference signal for measuring channel quality between UEs, including CSI-RS; Table 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first reference signal for measuring channel quality between UEs, including CSI-RS, as taught by Baek with the method and device for determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE as disclosed by Paladugu, as modified by Im, for the purpose of determining a quality metric for a decision criterion for connecting to a rely terminal in order to improve service and quality of communication, as suggested by Baek.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Paladugu, as modified by Im, discloses determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the second reference signal is one of: a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) or a channel-state information reference signal (CSI-RS).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Baek teaches and suggests wherein the second reference signal is one of: a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) or a channel-state information reference signal (CSI-RS) ([0155]; [0168]; teaches a reference signal for measuring channel quality between UEs, including DMRS and CSI-RS; Table 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a reference signal for measuring channel quality between UEs, including DMRS and CSI-RS, as taught by Baek with the method and device for determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE as disclosed by Paladugu, as modified by Im, for the purpose of determining a quality metric for a decision criterion for connecting to a rely terminal in order to improve service and quality of communication, as suggested by Baek.
Regarding claim 10, Paladugu, as modified by Im, discloses determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the measuring type information comprises one of: reference signal receiving power (RSRP), reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ) or a channel quality indicator (CQI).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Baek teaches and suggests wherein the measuring type information comprises one of: reference signal receiving power (RSRP), reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ) or a channel quality indicator (CQI) ([0112]; [0155]; teaches measuring channel quality between UEs, include measuring RSRP and RSRQ; Tables 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate measuring channel quality between UEs, include measuring RSRP and RSRQ, as taught by Baek with the method and device for determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE as disclosed by Paladugu, as modified by Im, for the purpose of determining a quality metric for a decision criterion for connecting to a rely terminal in order to improve service and quality of communication, as suggested by Baek.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALADUGU et al. (hereinafter Paladugu) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0180076 A1) in view of IM (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0064615 A1), and further VUTUKURI et al. (hereinafter Vutukuri) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0128466 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Paladugu, as modified by Im, discloses determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE, but may not explicitly disclose receiving mapping relationship information between a first logical channel and a second logical channel sent by the base station; wherein the first logical channel is a logical channel for wireless communication between the first terminal and the base station, and the second logical channel is a logical channel for wireless communication between the first terminal and the second terminal.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Vutukuri teaches and suggests receiving mapping relationship information between a first logical channel and a second logical channel sent by the base station; wherein the first logical channel is a logical channel for wireless communication between the first terminal and the base station, and the second logical channel is a logical channel for wireless communication between the first terminal and the second terminal ([0121]; [0122]; [0132]; teaches mapping between logical channels between UE and base station and UE and another UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mapping between logical channels between UE and base station and UE and another UE as taught by Vutukuri with the method and device for determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE as disclosed by Paladugu, as modified by Im, for the purpose of determining a quality metric for a decision criterion for switching in order to ensure communication quality between the terminal equipment and the base station, as suggested by Vutukuri.
Regarding claim 20, Paladugu, as modified by Im, discloses determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE, but may not explicitly disclose sending mapping relationship information between a first logical channel and a second logical channel to the first terminal, wherein the first logical channel is a logical channel for wireless communication between the first terminal and the base station, and the second logical channel is a logical channel for wireless communication between the first terminal and the second terminal.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Vutukuri teaches and suggests sending mapping relationship information between a first logical channel and a second logical channel to the first terminal, wherein the first logical channel is a logical channel for wireless communication between the first terminal and the base station, and the second logical channel is a logical channel for wireless communication between the first terminal and the second terminal ([0121]; [0122]; [0132]; teaches mapping between logical channels between UE and base station and UE and another UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mapping between logical channels between UE and base station and UE and another UE as taught by Vutukuri with the method and device for determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met and transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB is transmitted from the first UE to a relay UE as disclosed by Paladugu, as modified by Im, for the purpose of determining a quality metric for a decision criterion for switching in order to ensure communication quality between the terminal equipment and the base station, as suggested by Vutukuri.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, 27, and 29 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Consider claim 1, Applicant argues, on page 9 of the Remarks, that Paladugu fails to teach or disclose wherein the service switch condition comprises: channel quality between the first terminal and the second terminal is higher than a third set threshold within a predetermined time period; and the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's argument because as recited in the above rejections, Paladugu, as modified by Im, does teach and suggest wherein the service switch condition comprises: channel quality between the first terminal and the second terminal is higher than a third set threshold within a predetermined time period; and the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold.
Paladugu is relied upon and teaches and suggests in response to determining that a selection criteria for switching has been met, the first/remote UE itself directly triggers and initiates the switch of the transmission of data to be transmitted between a first UE and network entity/gNB from the first UE via a relay UE and the selection critieria includes determining that network measurements related to link quality are met over a measurement period which the measurement is made ([0071]; “…establishing or switching to primarily using sidelink PC5 connections and releasing Uu connections, when selection criteria, such as intra-frequency, inter-frequency, or other status/measurements, are met…”; [0073]; “…In other cases, the remote UE may decide and initiate the switch using the DL measurements…”; [0074]; “…Upon completion, the switch may include forwarding data from the source connection to the target connection…”; [0085]; “…the remote UE takes action to initiate the switch if the selection criteria are met…”).
Further, although Paladugu does not explicitly disclose the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold, Im is relied upon teaches and suggests determining a switching condition, such as a handover condition, and UE does not search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Paladugu and Im teaches and suggests wherein the service switch condition comprises: channel quality between the first terminal and the second terminal is higher than a third set threshold within a predetermined time period; and the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold.
Applicants are reminded that claims subject to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As a matter of fact, the "examiner has the duty of police claim language by giving it the broadest reasonable interpretation." Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P., 65 USPQ2d 1862, 1830, (Fed. Cir. 2003). Applicants are also reminded that claimed subject matter not the specification, is the measure of the invention. Disclosure contained in the specification cannot be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d, 155 USPQ 687 (1986).
For independent claims 13 and 27, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's argument for at least the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to claim 1.
For dependent claims 2-4, 7-11, 16-18, 20, and 29, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's argument for at least the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
January 24, 2026