DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 10/30/2025.
Claims 41-43, 45-52, and 54-58 are pending for Examination.
Claims 41-42, 45, 50-51, and 54, have been amended.
Claims 10-40, 44, and 53 have been cancelled to date.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 41 and 50, Applicant argues that Tenny does not teach/suggest features previously recited in cancelled claims 44 and 53, which were amended into each of independent claims 41 and 50. Applicant’s Remarks at p.8. However, in the previous Office Action it was Paladuga, as opposed to Tenny, that was substantially relied upon to read on the corresponding, contested claim subject matter of cancelled dependent claims 44 and 53.
In this regard, Applicant alleges that: “Paladuga does not cure the deficiencies of Tenny,” reciting only para. [0158] of Paladuga in an attempt to support its assertion, and then argues that “nowhere does Paladuga describe that the received mapping configuration indicates a mapping of E2E radio bearer IDs, which are associated with respective radio bearers between the remote WTRU and a NodeB.” Id at pp. 8-9. The Examiner respect fully disagrees.
Establishing radio bearer communications (i.e., PC5 and Uu air-interface radio bearer communications) via relay UE, between a remote SL UE(s) and a BS, is precisely what Paladuga describes. For instance, Paladuga teaches an E2E radio bearer ID, i.e., an adaptation layer ID, that can correspond to a radio bearer between a remote UE and a BS/NodeB, i.e., in SL Mode 1, and that a corresponding mapping can be created to map between the LCID of the PC5 interface, i.e., between a remote UE to a UE relay, and between the LCID of a Uu interface, i.e., between the relay UE and a base station, at paras. [0145], [0152]-[0154], [0158], [0160]-[0161], and [0165]. In this regard, Paladuga fairly reads on the contested claim feature: “wherein each of the one or more E2E bearer IDs is associated with a respective radio bearer between the remote WTRU and the NodeB.”
Paladuga also describes that its L2 adaptation header of its PDU messages can be utilized for properly routing SL relay communications, at paras. [0157]-[0158] and [0161]-[0162]. This additional subject matter fairly reads on the claim feature of “a UE transmitting a PDU adaptation layer header for relayed SL UE communications as part of a PDU session message.” It appears to the Examiner that the independent claims were amended to more appropriately track SL Mode 1 (including BS mapping), as opposed to SL Mode 2 (UE-autonomous).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to have modify Tenny’s appended adaptation layer header SL data packet communication to its relay UE via its mapped RLC channel, with E2E relaying PDU session messaging (including both PC5 and Uu air-interfaces/radio bearers) with a corresponding adaptation layer header, as taught by Paladuga, to facilitate SL PDU transmission between a sourceUE and a relayUE and between a relayUE and a BS, i.e., for corresponding radio bearer mapping in SL Mode 1.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for independent claims 41 and 50, are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 9. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 41-43, 45-52, and 54-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,856,625 B2, Tenny et al. (hereinafter “Tenny”) in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0289392 A1, Paladuga et al. (hereinafter “Paladuga”).
With respect to claim 41, Tenny teaches:
A remote wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising:
a transceiver; and
a processor (col. 5, ln. 21 to col. 6, ln. 29; and remote UEs of Figs. 1-2, w/wireless transceiver 10, and controller 20), wherein the transceiver and the processor are configured to:
receive a mapping configuration at an adaptation layer, the mapping configuration including information indicating a mapping of one or more end-to-end (E2E) radio bearer identifiers (IDs) to one or more egress PC5 radio link control (RLC) channels (col. 7, ln. 24 to col. 8, ln. 62, col. 9, lines 45-65; and Figs. 4, 6, and 7 —a configuration can be received, i.e., via a RRCReconfigurationSidelink message S605 of Fig. 6, by a SL UE that indicates a mapping of an E2E identifier such as a SLRB ID, i.e., for a SL Tx path A-D of Fig. 4, to a SLRB ID pertaining to a particular egress PC5 RLC channel of the SL UE, col. 8, lines 19-63),
receive, from a higher layer, a protocol data unit (PDU) (col. 4, lines 54-63, col. 7, lines 53-62, col. 8, lines. 8-36; and Fig. 4 —at the upper layers of the SL UE, i.e., the SDAP and PDCP layers, service-level data PDUs can include an E2E bearer ID to be mapped to a corresponding RLC channel);
select, based on the mapping configuration, one of the one or more egress PC5 RLC channels that is mapped to the one of the one or more E2E bearer IDs(col. 4, lines 54-63, col. 7, lines 53-62, col. 8, lines. 8-36; and Fig. 4 —an egress RLC channel, such as channels V-Z of Fig. 4, can be associated with and mapped to a particular SLRB A-D using a mapping configuration to facilitate communication between remote UEs 1-3 —for example, UE1 can prepare to send data to UE2 via a Relay UE, where RLC channel W can be mapped to SLRB D for channel W communication, depicted in Fig. 4);
append, to the PDU, an adaptation layer header comprising the one of the one or more E2E radio bearer IDs and a remote WTRU ID corresponding to the remote WTRU (col. 7, lines 53-62, col. 8, lines. 19-36; and Fig. 4 —an adaptation layer header can be appended to a service-level data, i.e., at the SDAP/PDCP upper layers, such that an intended recipient, remote UE, i.e., either of remote UEs 2 or 3 of Fig. 4, can be identified (via a L2 UE ID, MAC address) at relay UE as the destination/target UE); and
transmit a data packet to a relay WTRU, via the selected egress PC5 RLC channel associated with the mapped SLRB (col. 7, lines 53-62, col. 8, lines. 19-36; and Fig. 4 —UE1 can transmit its appended (L2) adaptation layer header associated with a SL data packet communication via RLC channel W to the relay UE to facilitate communications between SL UEs 1 and 2, i.e., via SLRB D over RLC channels W-V —a data packet is L3 PDU at the network layer).
However, Tenny does not explicitly teach:
transmitting a PDU with an appended adaptation layer header, and
wherein each of the one or more E2E bearer IDs is associated with a respective radio bearer between the remote WTRU and the NodeB.
Paladuga does teach:
wherein each of the one or more E2E bearer IDs is associated with a respective radio bearer between the remote WTRU and the NodeB (paras. [0145], [0152]-[0154], [0158], [0160]-[0161], and [0165] —an E2E radio bearer ID, i.e., an adaptation layer ID, can correspond to a radio bearer between a remote UE and a BS/NodeB, i.e., in SL Mode 1 —a mapping can be created for a mapping between the LCID of the PC5 interface and between and LCID of a Uu interface, i.e., between a remote UE to a UE relay, and between the relay UE and a base station); and
a UE transmitting a PDU adaptation layer header for relayed SL UE communications as part of a PDU session message (paras. [0157]-[0158] and [0161]-[0162] —the L2 adaptation header of the PDU message can be utilized for properly routing SL relay communications).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tenny’s appended adaptation layer header SL data packet communication to its relay UE via its mapped RLC channel, with Mode 1 E2E relaying PDU session messaging (including PC5 and Uu radio bearers/ air-interfaces), having an adaptation layer header, as taught by Paladuga.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly indicate the PDU adaptation layer header’s inclusion in a SL PDU transmission between a sourceUE and a relayUE and between a relayUE and a BS, i.e., for corresponding radio bearer mapping in SL Mode 1, as recognized by Paladuga (paras. [0145], [0152]-[0154], [0157]-[0158], [0160]-[0162], and [0165]).
With respect to claim 42, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches the remote WTRU of claim 41.
However, Tenny does not explicitly teach:
wherein the mapping configuration is received via radio resource control (RRC) signaling from the NodeB.
Paladuga does teach:
wherein the mapping configuration is received via radio resource control (RRC) signaling from the NodeB (paras. [0145], [0152], and [0161] —a radio bearer mapping configuration can be received from a BS/NodeB via RRC Reconfiguration signaling, i.e., in SL Mode 1).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tenny’s SL relay configuration as to include explicit mapping configuration from a BS via RRC messaging, as taught by Paladuga.
The motivation for doing so would have been to indicate configuration in Mode 1, as recognized by Paladuga (paras. [0156]-[0158] and [0161]-[0162]).
With respect to claim 43, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches:
The remote WTRU of claim 41, wherein the mapping configuration is received from the relay WTRU via PC5 signaling (Tenny: col. 7, lines 27-32, and col. 9, lines 45-65 —a radio bearer mapping configuration can be received from a relay UE via PC5 RRC Reconfiguration signaling i.e., in SL Modes 1 or 2 —the Examiner notes that Paladuga describes similar subject matter at paras. [0145], [0152], and [0161]).
With respect to claim 45, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches the remote WTRU of claim 41.
However, Tenny does not explicitly teach:
wherein each respective radio bearer between the remote WTRU and the NodeB is an air interface (Uu) radio bearer.
Paladuga does teach:
wherein each respective radio bearer between the remote WTRU and the NodeB is an air interface (Uu) radio bearer (paras. [0145], [0152]-[0154], [0158], [0160]-[0161], and [0165]) —the radio bearer, DRB, between a UE and a NodeB is a Uu air-interface, and the radio bearer, SRB, between two SL UEs is the PC5 air-interface, as would be readily understood by those skilled in the art).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tenny’s SL relay configuration as to include explicit indication of DRBs between a UE and a BS being over the Uu air-interface, as taught by Paladuga.
The motivation for doing so would have been to recognize the air-interface between a UE and a BS as a Uu air-interface, i.e., Mode 1, as recognized by Paladuga (paras. [0145], [0152]-[0154], [0158], [0160]-[0161], and [0165]).
With respect to claim 46, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches:
The remote WTRU of claim 41, wherein the mapping of the one or more E2E radio bearer IDs to the one or more egress PC5 RLC channels is a 1:1 mapping between each of the one or more E2E radio bearer IDs and each respective one of the one or more egress PC5 RLC channels (Tenny: col. 4, lines 54-63, col. 7, lines 53-62, col. 8, lines. 8-36; and Fig. 4 —an egress RLC channel, such as channels V-Z of Fig. 4, can be mapped to a particular SLRB A-D using a mapping configuration in a 1:1 mapping, to facilitate communication between a first UE1 and one or more remote UEs 2-3, —for example, UE1 can prepare to send data to UE2 via a Relay UE, where RLC channel W can be mapped to SLRB D for channel W communication, depicted in Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 47, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches:
The remote WTRU of claim 41,
wherein the one or more E2E radio bearer IDs comprises a plurality of E2E radio bearer IDs, and wherein the mapping of the one or more E2E radio bearer IDs to the one or more egress PC5 RLC channels includes an N:1 mapping of the plurality of the E2E radio bearer IDs to one egress PC5 RLC channel (Tenny: col. 4, lines 54-63, col. 6, ln. 63 to col. 7, ln. 30, col. 8, lines. 8-36; and Figs. 3-4 —multiple E2E SL radio bearers, i.e., identified as SLRBs A-C can be mapped to a single PC5 RLC channel, 3, which can be considered to be an N:1 mapping, as depicted in Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 48, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches:
The remote WTRU of claim 41,
wherein the one or more egress PC5 RLC channels comprises a plurality of egress PC5 RLC channels, wherein the mapping of the one or more E2E radio bearer IDs to the one or more egress PC5 RLC channels includes a 1:N mapping between one E2E radio bearer ID the plurality of egress PC5 RLC channels (Tenny: col. 4, lines 54-63, col. 6, ln. 63 to col. 7, ln. 30, col. 8, lines. 8-36; and Figs. 3-4 —multiple egress PC5 RLC channels, i.e., RLCs W and X, can be mapped to a single E2E SL radio bearer, i.e., identified as SLRB D, which can be considered a 1:N mapping, as depicted in Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 49, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches:
The remote WTRU of claim 41, wherein the adaptation layer header is used for routing the PDU (Tenny: col. 7, lines 53-62, col. 8, lines. 19-36; and Fig. 4 —an adaptation layer header can be appended to a service-level data upper layer, i.e., at the SDAP layer, such that an intended recipient, remote UE, i.e., either of remote UEs 2 or 3 of Fig. 4, can be identified (via a L2 UE ID, MAC address) at relay UE as the destination/target UE —this identification within the adaptation layer header is thereby used for routing PDU data at the relay UE to the destination UE).
With respect to claim 50, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 41, except claim 50 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 50 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 41.
With respect to claim 51, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 42, except claim 51 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 51 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 42.
With respect to claim 52, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 43, except claim 52 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 52 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 43.
With respect to claim 54, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 45, except claim 54 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 54 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Tenny, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 45.
With respect to claim 55, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 46, except claim 55 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 55 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 46.
With respect to claim 56, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 47, except claim 56 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 56 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 47.
With respect to claim 57, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 48, except claim 57 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 57 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 48.
With respect to claim 58, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 49, except claim 58 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 58 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 49.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US Patent No. 12,089,088 B2, Hu et al.: teaches E2E multi-hop SL communications including both PC5 and Uu adaptation layer PDU messaging related to the present application.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418