DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 17 October 2025.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 2 was canceled and claims 1, 3, and 12-14 have been amended by amendments filed on 17 October 2025.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 12-14 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of Applicant Remarks directed to the primary reference of the Final Rejection mailed on 17 July 2025, Wu et al. (US 2023/0284310), Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 12-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 9 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the relay UE disclosed in Tenny et al. (US 2023/0284310, hereinafter Tenny) is incapable of transmitting a first sidelink (SL) radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message and an RRC connection result message, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts 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 references.
Here, Tenny was cited in the Final Rejection at Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 69-70 for disclosure of transmitting a first SL RRC reconfiguration message. As will be further detailed below, Tenny, at Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 68-73, further discloses the RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message of step S602 as indicating success of the relay UE reconfiguring end-to-end identifiers as requested by remote UE 1 according to the RRCReconfigurationSidelink message of step 601, and the RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message of step 606 transmitted via the relay UE using a secured PC5-S connection between the remote UEs as indicating completion of the RRC reconfiguration as requested by the RRCReconfigurationSidelink message of step 605. Thus, the RRCReconfiguraitonCompleteSidelink message of step S602 and the RRCReconfiguraitonCompleteSidelink message of step S606 are for different SL RRC configurations.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 9 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Tenny cannot disclose the claimed invention because it does not disclose two different types of RRC messages, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two different types of RRC messages) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, although the claims refer to two different RRC message by different names — a first sidelink RRC reconfiguration complete message and an RRC connection result notification message, and ¶ 143 of the Specification as filed discloses those messages as “different,” the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of those terms is not limited to them being of different types of RRC messages. Neither the claims nor the Specification appear to limit the RRC messages as different types of RRC messages, let alone specially define the RRC messages as different types. Thus, the scope of the claimed RRC connection result notification message may encompass an RRC reconfiguration complete message as disclosed in the prior art. Therefore, Tenny’s RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message of step S606 still appears to be within the scope of the claimed RRC connection result notification message as further detailed below.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) *** is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenny et al. (US 2023/0136875, previously cited, hereinafter Tenny) in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0284310, previously cited, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding Claim 1, Tenny discloses a method of relaying, by a second user equipment (UE), sidelink communication between a first UE and a third UE in a wireless communication system (Figs. 6, 7, ¶¶ 66-67 and 75 disclose processes of setting up Radio Link Control (RLC) channels and a Sidelink (SL) Radio Bearer (RB, SLRB) in a UE-to-UE relaying architecture as performed by a relay UE between a first remote UE (UE1) and a second remote UE (UE2)), the method comprising:
receiving a first sidelink radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message from the first UE (Figs. 6, 7, ¶¶ 68 and 76 disclose the relay UE establishing a first RLC channel with UE1 where the relay UE receives a first RRCReconfigurationSidelink message (step S601));
transmitting a first sidelink RRC reconfiguration complete message to the first UE for determining whether a first sidelink RRC reconfiguration between the first UE and the second UE is successful in response to the first sidelink RRC reconfiguration message (Figs. 6, 7, ¶¶ 69 and 76 disclose the relay UE responding to step S601 with a first RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidleink message (step S602) indicating that values for an end-to-end (E2E) identifier to be mapped to RLC channels configured by step S601 has been performed);
transmitting a second sidelink RRC reconfiguration message to the third UE based on the transmission of the first sidelink RRC reconfiguration complete message (Figs. 6, 7, ¶¶ 70 and 77 disclose the relay UE sending a second RRCReconfigurationSidelink message to UE2 (step S603) indicating one or more values for the E2E identifier for the same SLRB assigned in steps 601-602);
monitoring a second sidelink RRC reconfiguration result message to be received from the third UE (Figs. 6, 7, and ¶¶ 71 and 77 disclose the relay UE receiving an RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message from UE2 (step S604)); and
transmitting an RRC connection result notification message to the first UE based on the monitoring of the second sidelink RRC reconfiguration result message (Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 72-73 disclose UE1 sending an RRCReconfigurationSidelink message (step S605) to UE2 via the remote UE using a secured PC5-S connection between UE1 and UE2 configuring one or more SLRBs between UE1 and UE2; Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 78-80 disclose the relay UE receiving an SL transmission from UE1 for UE2 on the first RLC channel between UE1 and the relay UE2 and transmitting the SL transmission to UE2 on the second RLC channel between the relay UE and UE2 associated with the E2E identifier of the SLRB between UE1 and UE2 — thus, an SLRB between two end-point UEs functions by an E2E identifier being uniquely associated with ingress and egress RLCs at the intervening relay UE(s); Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 73-74 disclose UE2 sending an RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message to UE1 (step S606) using the SLRB),
wherein the RRC connection result notification message includes a field for whether a second sidelink RRC reconfiguration between the second UE and the third UE is successful (¶ 73 discloses, that in step S606, the RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message indicates that the reconfiguration required in step S605 has been completed; and ¶ 74 discloses that in order for actual traffic to be transmitted on the SLRB, steps S601-S604 must have been executed — thus, indication the RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message of step S606 at least indicates that RRC Reconfiguration as requested at step S603 was successfully completed), and
wherein the first sidelink RRC reconfiguration complete message and the RRC connection result notification message relate to whether respective sidelink reconfigurations are successful (¶¶ 70 and 73-74 disclose the respective RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink messages of steps S602 and S606 indicate performance of RRC reconfiguration as requested in respective RRCReconfigurationSidelink messages of steps S601 and S603 as successful, otherwise the transmission of actual traffic, as disclosed at Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 78-80 could not occur).
Tenny may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the monitoring is during a running period of a first timer running after the transmission of the second sidelink RRC reconfiguration message.
However, in analogous art, Wu discloses:
monitoring a second sidelink RRC reconfiguration result message to be received from the third UE during a running period of a first timer running (Fig. 7 and ¶ 149 disclose a relay UE starting a timer for controlling a reconfiguration procedure while waiting to receive an RRC reconfiguration failure sidelink message from another UE) after the transmission of the second sidelink RRC reconfiguration message (¶¶ 149-150 disclose the relay UE receiving the RRC Reconfiguration failure SL message from the other UE indicating the other UE as a destination UE of the RRC connection attempted to be reconfigured immediately after disclosing the relay UE as having sent the RRC reconfiguration for relaying a SL message to the other UE — thus, the RRC reconfiguration failure SL message is at least implied to occur after the relay UE transmits the RRC reconfiguration message for the relayed SL message to the other UE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wu to modify Tenny in order to use a timer to control a reconfiguration procedure by monitoring the RLC channel between the relay UE and UE2 for an RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message or an RRC Reconfiguration Failure SL message to be received while a timer runs after the relay UE transmits the RRCReconfigurationSidelink message. One would have been motivated to do this, because use of a timer allows for a failure to be detected through expiration of the timer instead of continuing to wait to receive an RRC message that may never arrive (Wu ¶¶ 58, 133, and 151-152).
Regarding Claim 3, Tenny-Wu disclose the method of claim 1.
Tenny may not explicitly disclose wherein the field of the RRC connection result notification message indicating:
whether the second UE receives the second sidelink RRC reconfiguration result message from the third UE during the running period of the first timer; or
whether the second sidelink RRC reconfiguration result message received from the third UE is a sidelink RRC reconfiguration failure message.
However, in analogous art, Wu discloses wherein the field of the RRC connection result notification message indicating:
whether the second UE receives the second sidelink RRC reconfiguration result message from the third UE during the running period of the first timer; or
whether the second sidelink RRC reconfiguration result message received from the third UE is a sidelink RRC reconfiguration failure message (Fig. 7, ¶¶ 149 and 151 disclose the RRC reconfiguration failure SL message sent by the relay UE to UEa as including a failure cause including an SL RLF (timer expiry) or a configuration failure (received an RRC reconfiguration failure SL message from UEb)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wu to modify Tenny in order to use a timer to control a reconfiguration procedure by monitoring the RLC channel between the relay UE and UE2 for an RRCReconfigurationCompleteSidelink message or an RRC Reconfiguration Failure SL message to be received while a timer runs after the relay UE transmits the RRCReconfigurationSidelink message. One would have been motivated to do this, because use of a timer allows for a failure to be detected through expiration of the timer instead of continuing to wait to receive an RRC message that may never arrive (Wu ¶¶ 58, 133, and 151-152).
Regarding Claim 10, Tenny-Wu disclose the method of claim 1.
Tenny may not explicitly disclose wherein based on receiving a sidelink RRC release message from one of the first UE and the third UE, the second UE transmits information on the sidelink RRC release message reception to the other one of the first UE and the third UE.
However, in analogous art, Wu discloses wherein based on receiving a sidelink RRC release message from one of the first UE and the third UE, the second UE transmits information on the sidelink RRC release message reception to the other one of the first UE and the third UE (Fig. 4 and ¶¶ 107-108, 111-112, 119, 140 and 142 disclose a UE releasing various radio bearers (DRBs and SRBs) based on receiving a failure information — such as when the Relay UE receives failure information in the RRC reconfiguration failure for relayed sidelink message from the other UE as illustrated in Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wu to modify Tenny in order to allow an RLC channel to be released upon detecting a failure. One would have been motivated to do this, because releasing links related to failed reconfiguration is obvious to try — thereby conserving resources.
Regarding Claims 12-14, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 12-14 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenny-Wu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2024/0414623, previously cited, hereinafter Yao).
Regarding Claim 4, Tenny-Wu disclose the method of claim 3.
Tenny-Wu may not explicitly disclose wherein the first sidelink RRC reconfiguration complete message is transmitted to the first UE before expiration of the first timer running after the first UE transmits the first sidelink RRC reconfiguration message.
However, in analogous art, Yao discloses wherein the first sidelink RRC reconfiguration complete message is transmitted to the first UE before expiration of the first timer running after the first UE transmits the first sidelink RRC reconfiguration message (Figs. 9A-9B and ¶¶ 361-362 disclose a relay sending an RRC reconfiguration complete message to a first network device, then receiving an RRC reconfiguration complete message from a remote UE and forwarding the received RRC reconfiguration complete message to the first network device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yao to modify Tenny-Wu in order to have a relay UE send its own RRC reconfiguration complete message and forward a remote UE's RRC reconfiguration complete message to a device (disclosed as UE1 in Tenny and as a first network device in Yao) that effectively requested the RRC reconfiguration before the expiration of a local timer started by the relay UE upon receiving the RRC reconfiguration sidelink message. One would have been motivated to do this, because a relay UE providing an RRC reconfiguration complete message for itself and separately for its associated remote UE may help reduce a probability of transmission loss caused when configuration of one UE is completed but configuration of the other UE is not completed (Yao ¶ 364).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468