DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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: 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 06/15/2026.
Claims 41-43, 46-48, 50-52, 55-57, and 59-66 are pending for Examination.
Claims 41, 46-48, 50, and 55-57 have been amended.
Claims 1-40, 44-45, 49, 53-54, and 58 have been cancelled to date.
NEW Claims 59-66 have been added.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on: 06/15/2026 is determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 41 and 50, Applicant asserts that: “neither Tenny nor Paladuga teaches the claimed combination of ‘receiv[ing] a first protocol data unit (PDU),’ ‘receiv[ing] a mapping configuration including information indicating a mapping of one or more radio bearer identifiers (IDs) to at least a second egress PC5 RLC channel,’ ‘receiving a second PDU,’ and ‘in response to receiving the second PDU, select[ing], based on the mapping configuration, the second egress PC5 RLC channel that is mapped to the E2E bearer ID.’” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 9. Applicant then states that: “The Office Action has not addressed these claim elements,” as opposed to explaining how or why Tenny and Paladuga fail to teach/suggest the above amended claim subject matter. Id at pp. 9-10. Therefore, the Examiner has no specific arguments to rebut/respond to.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the particulars of the references. Applicant generally asserts that the applied prior art, i.e., Tenny and Paladuga, somehow fails to teach/suggest a large portion of the claim limitations, See Applicants Remarks at p. 9, without providing any substantive rationale supporting such an assertion. This type of response is considered to be equivalent to a general assertion of patentability, which does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b).
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments provided with respect to independent claims 41 and 50 are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
With respect to claims 48 and 57, Applicant asserts that Tenny fails to teach/suggest the claimed feature of “a 1:N mapping between one E2E radio bearer ID [and] the plurality of egress PC5 RLC channels.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. In this regard, Applicant asserts that “at best” Tenny’s Figs. 3-4 “illustrate that a given SLRB (e.g., SLRBs A, B, C, or D) may be mapped to a single egress RLC channel (V, W, X, Y, or D), because each pairing of RLC channels across a given SLRB contains only a single egress RLC channel from the perspective of a remote UE or a relay UE, ” etc. Id at p. 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
What is claimed is a mapping of one or more radio bearer IDs, i.e., SLRB IDs, to a plurality of egress PC5 RLC channels, including a 1:N mapping between one E2E bearer ID and the plurality of egress channels. Tenny’s Figure 3 is reproduced below for illustrative purposed.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As depicted in Fig. 3, Tenny’s upper SLRB, identified as SLRB D, extends from remote UE1 to remote UE2, via the relay UE. Within the SLRB D there are at least two RLC egress channels, RLC W and RLC V. Thus, the single identified SLRB D is clearly mapped to multiple egress RLCs, which can be considered a 1:N mapping (col. 4, lines 54-63, col. 6, ln. 63 to col. 7, ln. 30, col. 8, lines. 8-36; and Fig. 4).
For this addition reason, Applicant’s arguments provided with respect to dependent claims 48 and 57 are determined not to be persuasive.
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.
Claims 41-43, 46-48, 50-52, 55-57, and 63-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claims 41 and 50, the claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, independent claims 41 and 50 were similarly amended to recite, in part:
“a remote wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) …configured to: …receive a first protocol data unit (PDU),” “…determine that the first PDU is associated with a first end-to-end (E2E) air interface Uu radio bearer between the remote WTRU and a base station,” “transmit, to a relay WTRU, the first PDU…,” “…receive a mapping configuration …indicating a mapping of one or more radio bearer identifiers (IDs) to at least a second egress PC5 RLC channel,” “…receive a second protocol data unit (PDU) that is different from the first PDU,” “…determine that the second PDU is associated with the second E2E Uu radio bearer between the remote WTRU and a base station,” “…select based on the mapping configuration, the second egress PC5 RLC channel that is mapped to the E2E bearer ID,” “…append, to the second PDU, an adaptation layer header,” and “transmit, to the relay WTRU, via the second egress PC5 RLC channel, the second PDU…,” etc.
However, the Examiner notes that there does not appear to be any specific, corresponding written description support for the above amended claim subject matter, as argued by Applicant against the applied prior art references in their remarks. Applicant also failed provide any indication of support within its original disclosure, i.e., via citation or reference to its Figures, for its most recent claim amendments, to assist the Office in determining where required written description support exists. Applicant is hereby required to provide specific support for it most recent claim amendments in it next response.
Notably, the only PDU transmission seen in any of Applicant’s original drawings exists in Fig. 4B, which is reproduced below for illustrative purposes.
PNG
media_image2.png
377
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4B seemingly relates to Mode2 sidelink procedure (as both a BS and a corresponding Uu air interface with a WTRU is excluded), where a single PDU is depicted as being relayed from a source WTRU to a target WTRU to achieve a desired E2E QoS considering per-hop latency budgets, etc. However, what is recited within Applicant’s independent claims appears to be two-step PDU transmission procedure, with parts i. and ii., presented as follows:
a remote WTRU receives a first PDU, determines this PDU to be associated with an E2E Uu air interface between itself and a BS, selects a first egress PC5 RLC channel, and then, the transmits the first PDU to a relay WTRU via the first egress PC5 RLC channel.
next, and presumably after the first PDU transmission (in association with a different PDU transmission procedure?), the remote WTRU receives a mapping configuration with an E2E radio bearer ID(s) mapping to a second egress PC5 RLC channel, where an E2E bearer ID of the mapping is associated with a second E2E Uu radio bearer between the remote WTRU and the same BS. Subsequently, the remote WTRU receives a second PDU, determines it to be associated with the second E2E Uu radio bearer, selects the second egress PC5 RLC channel mapped to the bearer ID of via the previously received mapping configuration, appends an adaptation layer header with both the E2E bearer ID and an ID of a the remote WTRU thereto, and then transmits the second PDU to the relay UE via the second egress PC5 RLC channel.
The Examiner searched Applicant’s original disclosure for the claimed: “second PDU,” “second E2E Uu radio bearer” and “second egress PC5 RLC channel” terms (and similar terminology), as well as for: a received “mapping configuration,” “E2E bearer IDs” and appended “adaptation layer header” subject matter in association with a second/subsequent PDU-relayed transmission, looking for any described differentiation between first and second PDU transmissions. In conclusion, the Examiner was not able to find any tangible support for the above claim subject matter, as amended. Support must be specific and clearly relatable to the claim subject matter. New matter cannot be added via claim amendments. The Examiner would like to know, what is the intended connection between the claimed first PDU transmission (not requiring the mapping configuration) and the second PDU transmission (requiring the mapping configuration) where the remote WTRU transmits different PDUs to the same relay WTRU via different procedures and different SL egress channels?
For all of the above reasons, claims 41 and 50 fail to comply with the written description requirement of §112(a). Appropriate correction is required.
With respect to claims 42-43, 46-48, 51-52, 55-57, and 59-66, these claim are likewise rejected under §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement, based upon their respective dependency from one of independent claims 41 and 50.
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, 46-48, 50-52, 55-57, and 65-66 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 first 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 be received, which include an E2E bearer ID to be mapped to a corresponding RLC channel);
select a first egress PC5 radio link control (RLC) channel 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 selected and mapped to a particular SLRB A-D using a mapping configuration to facilitate communication between remote UEs 1-3);
transmit, to a relay WTRU, the first PDU using the first egress PC5 RLC channel (col. 7, lines 53-62, col. 8, lines. 19-36; and Fig. 4 —a UE can transmit a SL PDU 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);
receive a mapping configuration including information indicating a mapping of one or more E2E radio bearer identifiers (IDs) to at least a second egress PC5 RLC channel (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 a second protocol data unit (PDU) that is different from the first 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);
in response to receiving the second PDU, select, based on the mapping configuration, one of the second egress PC5 RLC channels that is mapped to the E2E bearer ID (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 second PDU, an adaptation layer header comprising the E2E radio bearer ID 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 the 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:
determine that the first PDU is associated with a first end-to-end (E2E) air interface (Uu) radio bearer between the remote WTRU and a base station;
determine that the second PDU is associated with a second end-to-end (E2E) air interface (Uu) radio bearer between the remote WTRU and a base station;
transmitting the second 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:
determine a PDU is associated with a first end-to-end (E2E) air interface (Uu) radio bearer between the remote WTRU and a base station (paras. [0022]-[0024], [0098]-[0099], and [0144]-[0145]; and configuration 440 of Fig. 4 —via configuration, a PDU transmission can be associated with a E2E air interface Uu RB between a UE and a BS);
determine that the second PDU is associated with a second end-to-end (E2E) air interface (Uu) radio bearer between the remote WTRU and a base station (paras. [0022]-[0024], [0098]-[0099], and [0144]-[0145]; and configuration 440 of Fig. 4 —via configuration, a second PDU transmission can be associated with a E2E air interface Uu RB between a UE and a BS);
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 base station.
Paladuga does teach:
wherein the mapping configuration is received via radio resource control (RRC) signaling from the base station (paras. [0145], [0152], and [0161] —a radio bearer mapping configuration can be received from a BS 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 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 at least the second 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 at least the second 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 at least the second egress PC5 RLC channels includes an N:1 mapping of the plurality of the E2E radio bearer IDs to the second 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 at least the second PC5 RLC channel comprises a plurality of egress PC5 RLC channels, wherein the mapping of the one or more E2E radio bearer IDs to the plurality of egress PC5 RLC channels includes a 1:N mapping between one E2E radio bearer ID and 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 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 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 65, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches:
The remote WTRU of claim 41, wherein the first PDU is received from a higher layer of the remote WTRU, wherein the mapping configuration is received at an adaptation layer of the remote WTRU, and wherein the second PDU is received from a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer of the remote WTRU (Tenny: col. 4, lns. 46-63, col. 5, lns. 820 col. 10, lns. 42-65; and Fig. 1 —a PDU can be received from a higher layer, and an adaptation layer can process remote UE mapping configurations, as described for claim 41 —a PDCP layer of a UE can also transmit a PDU received from other protocol layers, as illustrated in the protocol stack layers of Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 66, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 65, except claim 66 is directed to a method performed by a WTRU. As such, claim 66 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 65.
Claims 59 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Tenny in view of Paladuga, in further view of US PG Pub. 2023/0023135 A1, Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”).
With respect to claim 59, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches the remote WTRU of claim 41, including applying a semi-static mapping configuration at the adaptation layer of a remote UE including establishing an E2E radio bearer between remote UEs to facilitate SL communications (Tenny: col. 2, lns. 1-28 and 48-67, col. 4, lns. 49-63, col. 5, lines 8-13, and col. 9, ln. 45 to col. 10, ln. 58; and S601 to S606 of Fig. 6 —RRC re/configurations are semi-static configurations which can be used at the adaptation layer for mapping and establishing E2E radio bearers between a remote UE 1 and a remote UE 2, as depicted in Fig. 6).
However, Tenny in view of Paladuga do not explicitly teach:
wherein the first E2E Uu bearer is a default E2E Uu radio bearer.
Liu does teach:
wherein the first E2E Uu bearer is a default E2E Uu radio bearer (paras. [0172]-[0174]; and Figs. 2 and 6 —a first E2E Uu bearer can be a default Uu RLC bearer established for relayed Mode 1 type communications between SL UEs).
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 in view of Paladuga’s semi-static, RRC mapping re/configuration at the adaptation layer of a remote UE including establishing an E2E Uu radio bearer between remote UEs, with a first E2E Uu radio bearer being a default Uu radio bearer, as taught by Liu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce signaling overhead by utilizing a default, established E2E Uu radio bearer, as recognized by Liu (paras. [0172]-[0174]; and Figs. 2 and 6).
With respect to claim 60, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 59, except claim 60 is written in method form. As such, claim 60 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga and Liu, for the same reasons described above for dependent claim 59.
Claims 61 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Tenny in view of Paladuga, in further view of US Patent No. 12,089,088 B2, Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”).
With respect to claim 61, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches the remote WTRU of claim 41.
However, Tenny in view of Paladuga do not explicitly teach:
selecting the first egress PC5 RLC channel based on a pre-configuration at the adaptation layer of the remote WTRU.
Hu does teach:
selecting the first egress PC5 RLC channel based on a pre-configuration at the adaptation layer of the remote WTRU (col. 6, ln. 60 to col. 7, ln. 7, col. 7, lns. 38-40, and col. 12, ln. 65 to col. 13, ln. 25 —an initial egress PC5 RLC channel selection can be based on various QoS based mapping rules, which may be preconfigured to take place at the adaptation layer).
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 in view of Paladuga’s semi-static, RRC mapping re/configuration at the adaptation layer of a remote UE to include selecting a first egress PC5 RLC channel based on a pre-configuration at the adaptation layer a SL WTRU, as taught by Hu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce signaling overhead by utilizing a preconfigured mapping rule to select an egress PC5 RLC channel, as recognized by Hu (col. 6, ln. 60 to col. 7, ln. 7, col. 7, lns. 38-40, and col. 12, ln. 65 to col. 13, ln. 25).
With respect to claim 62, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 61, except claim 62 is written in method form. As such, claim 62 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga and Hu, for the same reasons described above for dependent claim 61.
Claims 63 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Tenny in view of Paladuga, in further view of US Patent No. 11,229,067 B2, Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
With respect to claim 63, Tenny in view of Paladuga teaches the remote WTRU of claim 41.
However, Tenny in view of Paladuga do not explicitly teach:
selecting the first egress PC5 RLC channel based on a radio bearer type associated with the first E2E Uu radio bearer.
Wang does teach:
selecting the first egress PC5 RLC channel based on a radio bearer type associated with the first E2E Uu radio bearer (col. 2, lns. 41-58, col. 3, lns. 4-35, col. 9, lns. 15-20 and 36-39, col. 17, lns. 10-40, and col.20, lns. 21-35; and Figs. 2A and 11 —a SL channel selection/determination can be based on radio bearer type associated with a E2E BS-UE (Uu) bearer).
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 in view of Paladuga’s semi-static, RRC mapping re/configuration at the adaptation layer of a remote UE to include selecting/determining an egress PC5 RLC channel based on a radio bearer type associated with a Uu radio bearer, as taught by Wang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve PC5 RB selection by considering radio bear type, as recognized by Wang (col. 2, lns. 41-58, col. 3, lns. 4-35, col. 9, lns. 15-20 and 36-39, col. 17, lns. 10-40, and col.20, lns. 21-35; and Figs. 2A and 11).
With respect to claim 64, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 63, except claim 64 is written in method form. As such, claim 64 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Tenny in view of Paladuga and Wang, for the same reasons described above for dependent claim 63.
Conclusion
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights