DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed June 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 27, and 29 have been amended.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19-26, and 28 are cancelled.
Claims 30, 31, and 32 have been newly added.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 16-18, 27, and 29-32 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 29 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “capable of” within the body of the claims. The use of the term "capable of” renders the claim indefinite since there is no positive recitation of the step being performed; it, therefore, does not define the invention in the manner contemplated by the second sentence of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests replacing all references to "capable of" with --configured to-- or --operable to--.
Response to Arguments and Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 16-18, 27, and 30-32 are allowed.
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 26, 2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) based on the combination of Paladugu and Im have been fully considered and are persuasive, illustrating how the claims distinguish from each of the cited references and their proposed combinations. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, and the claims are allowed over the prior art of record.
The prior art of record taken alone and/or in combination fails to teach or suggest, with respect to claim 1, receiving, by the first terminal from the base station, mapping relationship information between a first logical channel and a second logical channel, 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; and in response to determining by the first terminal that the service switch condition is met, directly triggering, by the first terminal itself and based on the mapping relationship information, transfer of service data carried on the first logical channel to be carried on the second logical channel, such that service data transmitted between the first terminal and the base station is transmitted between the first terminal and the second terminal, wherein the second terminal is operating as a relay terminal enabling communication between the first terminal and the base station; wherein the service switch condition comprises, the following: the channel quality between the first terminal and the second terminal is higher than the third set threshold within the predetermined time period; the first terminal cannot search for a cell whose signal intensity is greater than a signal intensity threshold; and the radio channel quality between the first terminal and the base station and the radio channel quality between the first terminal and the neighbor base station of the base station are both lower than the second set threshold within the predetermined time period. The same reasoning applies to claims 13 and 27.
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
August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights