DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 2/18/2026. Claims 1 and 12 have been
amended. Claims 29-30 have been canceled. Claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-24 remain pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments (page 6-9), filed on 2/18/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of
claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot because new ground of rejections using a newly introduced reference (3GPP-R2-168199) are applied in the current rejection.
Regarding remarks in page 7 for independent claim 1, applicant asserts that there is no distinction as to, prior to placing the first terminal device in the RRC non-connected state, to send a request for the second terminal device to attempt switching from the first terminal device when the second terminal device is in the RRC connected state as now claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #96-R2-168199 discloses (For the RRC_CONNECTED evolved remote UE, if it transmits/receives the CP/UP from eNB, it acts as the normal RRC_IDLE UE. The cell measurement and cell (re-)selection is still necessary for the evolved remote UE since the evolved remote UE may switch its path from PC5 to Uu in case that the signal from evolved relay UE is not good enough. In addition, the remote UE may change its serving cell together with connected relay UE under the control of network. So the network controlled mobility still needs to be supported, 3GPP_R2_168199: Table 2, Proposal 2).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in line 8, “a Control Unit-User Plane (CU-UP)” should be replaced by “a Central Unit-User Plane (CU-UP)”.
Claim 1, in line 12, “a Control Unit-Control Plane (CU-CP)” should be replaced by “a Central Unit-Control Plane (CU-CP)”.
Claim 12, in line 8, “Control Unit-User Plane (CU-UP)” should be replaced by “Central Unit-User Plane (CU-UP)”.
Claim 12, in line 8-9, “a Control Unit-Control Plane (CU-CP)” should be replaced by “a Central Unit-Control Plane (CU-CP)”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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 1-2, 4-7, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
PALADUGU et al. (US 2021/0243829 Al, hereinafter “Paladugu”) in view of Gurumoorthy et al. (US 2022/0015183 Al, hereinafter “Gurumoorthy”) and in further view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #96, R2-168199 (ZTE: Discussion on the RRC state of remote UE and relay UE, hereafter “3GPP_R2_68199”).
Regarding claim 1, Paladugu discloses:
A method performed by a base station, wherein the base station is a next generation NodeB (gNB), comprising (A wireless network may include a number of base stations (BSs). a BS may be referred to as a Node B, a gNB, an access point (AP), a radio head, a transmit receive point (TRP), a New Radio (NR) BS, a 5G Node B, or the like. a method of wireless communication, performed by a base station, Paladugu: [0004]-[0005], [0007]):
As shown in FIG. 4, there may be an N3 interface between the NG-RAN and a user-plane function (UPF) of the user-plane protocol architecture. the relay UE (e.g., UE 120) performs operations associated with UE to network relay. relay UE may relay control-plane or user-plane traffic between the remote UE and the network entity via the one or more bearers. access stratum configuration indicates at least a parameter associated with an RRC state operation; means for receiving or transmitting control-plane or user-plane traffic associated with the remote UE via the one or more bearers based at least in part on the access stratum configuration, Paladugu: Fig.4. Fig. 12, [0070], [0168], [0175], [0183], [0187], [0216]),
wherein the user plane is a Control Unit-User Plane (CU-UP) of the gNB (there may be an N3 interface between the NG-RAN and a user-plane function (UPF) of the user-plane protocol architecture 400, and an N6 interface between the UPF and a core network (CNW), Paladugu: Fig.4. [0070]); and
reporting, by the user plane, a result of the determination to a control plane of the base station (may forward the message to the adaptation layer entity of the relay UE for forwarding to the BS over a Uu link. In this case, NR control-plane traffic may be handled by two PDCPs (for example, an NR-PDCP and a PCS-PDCP associated with protocol stacks including the NR-RRC, NR-PDCP, PCS-S, PCS-PDCP, PCS-RLC, PCSMAC, and PCS-PHY), Paladugu: [0082]).
wherein the control plane is a Control Unit-Control Plane (CU-CP) of the gNB (FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of a control-plane protocol architecture 300 for a Layer 2 UE-to-network relay using Uu bearers that are not handled by a sidelink signaling entity or a sidelink radio resource control entity, Paladugu: Fig.3. [0068]-[0069])
Paladugu does not explicitly disclose:
determining, by a user plane of the base station, whether a first terminal device that acts as a terminal device to network relay for one or more second terminal devices in radio resource control (RRC) connected state is inactive, based on traffic conditions of the first terminal device and traffic conditions of the second terminal device being relayed by the first terminal device during a time period given by an inactivity timer,
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gurumoorthy teaches:
determining, by a user plane of the base station, whether a first terminal device that acts as a terminal device to network relay for one or more second terminal devices in radio resource control (RRC) connected state is inactive, based on traffic conditions of the first terminal device and traffic conditions of the second terminal device being relayed by the first terminal device during a time period given by an inactivity timer (the cellular base station may take into consideration any or all of a preferred target RRC state indicated by the wireless device, a preferred data inactivity timer length indicated by the wireless device. When the device is in a RRC inactive or idle state, it may request (e.g., in any agreed upon RRC signaling message) a preferred data inactivity timer and a preferred RRC state to fall back to when the inactivity timer expires from the network. In addition the device can also indicate a service pattern and/or any relevant assistance information that can help the network to configure an inactivity timer and preferred RRC state after expiry of the inactivity timer, Gurumoorthy: [0082]-[0084], [0100]-[0102]),
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 modify Paladugu in view of Gurumoorthy in order to further modify determining in radio resource control (RRC) connected state is inactive, based on traffic conditions of the first terminal device and traffic conditions of the second terminal device being relayed by the first terminal device during a time period given by an inactivity timer from the teachings of Gurumoorthy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because such a state may improve the power
saving capability of a wireless device, e.g., in comparison to operating in a RRC connected state and improve wireless device power usage efficiency, among various possibilities (Gurumoorthy: [0074], [0076]).
Yet, Paladugu in view of Gurumoorthy do not explicitly disclose:
and wherein the CU-CP, prior to placing the first terminal device in a RRC non-connected state, to send a request for the second terminal device to attempt switching from the first terminal device when the second terminal device is in the RRC connected state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP_R2_68199 teaches:
and wherein the CU-CP, prior to placing the first terminal device in a RRC non-connected state, to send a request for the second terminal device to attempt switching from the first terminal device when the second terminal device is in the RRC connected state (For the RRC_CONNECTED evolved remote UE, if it transmits/receives the CP/UP from eNB, it acts as the normal RRC_IDLE UE. The cell measurement and cell (re-)selection is still necessary for the evolved remote UE since the evolved remote UE may switch its path from PC5 to Uu in case that the signal from evolved relay UE is not good enough. In addition, the remote UE may change its serving cell together with connected relay UE under the control of network. So the network controlled mobility still needs to be supported, 3GPP_R2_68199: Table 2, Proposal 2).
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 modify Paladugu and Gurumoorthy in view of 3GPP_R2_68199 in order to further modify sending a request for the second terminal device to attempt switching from the first terminal device when the second terminal device is in the RRC connected state from the teachings of 3GPP_R2_68199.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the evolved remote UE behaviour in RRC_IDLE and RRC_CONNECTED state basically follows the legacy UE with several adjustments (3GPP_R2_68199: Proposal 2).
Regarding claim 2, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Paladugu in view of 3GPP_R2_68199 does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining whether the first terminal device is inactive comprises:
performing terminal device level inactivity monitoring for the first terminal device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gurumoorthy teaches:
wherein the determining whether the first terminal device is inactive comprises (When the device is in a RRC inactive or idle state, it may request (e.g., in any agreed upon RRC signaling message) a preferred data inactivity timer and a preferred RRC state to fall back to when the inactivity timer expires from the network, Gurumoorthy: [0100]-[0102]):
performing terminal device level inactivity monitoring for the first terminal device (UE may transition to the RRC inactive state without any explicit network trigger, and may subsequently operate in the RRC inactive state. UE requests RRC idle as its preferred state after data inactivity timer expiry, and in which RRC idle is also selected by the network as the state to which to transition after data inactivity timer expiry, Gurumoorthy: [0107]-[0108]).
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 modify Paladugu and 3GPP_R2_68199 in view of Gurumoorthy in order to further modify determining whether the first terminal device is inactive and performing terminal device level inactivity monitoring for the first terminal device from the teachings of Gurumoorthy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because such a state may improve the power
saving capability of a wireless device, e.g., in comparison to operating in a RRC connected state and improve wireless device power usage efficiency, among various possibilities (Gurumoorthy: [0074], [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Paladugu further discloses:
The method according to any of claim 1, further comprising:
performing, by the user plane, data radio bearer (DRB), or protocol data unit (PDU) session level inactivity monitoring, or both DRB and PDU session level inactivity monitoring for the first terminal device (the remote UE and the relay UE may configure the one or more SRBs and/or the one or more DRBs in accordance with the configuration information. "configuring a bearer" may refer to configuring an NR-SDAP and/or NR-PDCP entity for the bearer, mapping a PCS logical channel to the bearer, and/or the like. Furthermore, a PCS-RLC component of the remote UE may be configured to handle the NR-PDCP protocol data unit (PDU) format, which may enable the handling of NR control-plane and user-plane PDCP PDUs, Paladugu: [0087]).
Regarding claim 5, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Paladugu further discloses:
The method according to claim 2, further comprising:
receiving by the user plane from the control plane, a first request for bearer context setup for the first terminal device, wherein the first request indicates a condition under which terminal device level inactivity monitoring should be performed (After communication of the RRC messages (e.g., the RRC setup request, the RRC setup message, and/or the RRC reconfiguration message), the remote UE, the relay UE, and the BS may establish and/or reconfigure the RRC connection. the parameter associated with the RRC state operation indicates a discontinuous reception configuration or an inactivity timer for the remote UE, Paladugu: [0096], [0131]); and
wherein the terminal device level inactivity monitoring is performed in response to the first terminal device satisfying the indicated condition (access stratum configuration corresponds to a radio access stratum configuration of the relay UE and includes an information element indicating at least one of radio access discontinuous reception configuration or an inactivity timer for the remote UE for maintaining the connection with the network entity, Paladugu: [0241]).
Regarding claim 6, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Paladugu further discloses:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the reporting the result of the determination to the control plane comprises (wireless device may further indicate a preferred data inactivity timer length for the wireless device, e.g., which may be used by the wireless device and the cellular base station as a basis for determining when an implicit RRC state transition should occur, Paladugu: [0081]-[0082]):
indicating at least a terminal device level inactivity status for the first terminal device (cellular base station may indicate the determined target RRC state and/or data inactivity timer length to the wireless device, Paladugu: [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Paladugu further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the user plane from the control plane, one or more second requests for bearer context modification (After communication of the RRC messages (e.g., the RRC setup request, the RRC setup message, and/or the RRC reconfiguration message), the remote UE, the relay UE, and the BS may establish and/or reconfigure the RRC connection. The RRC connection may be referred to herein as a radio access connection or a connection. In some aspects, the BS may provide an RRC message, such as an RRC reconfiguration message, to the relay UE. The RRC reconfiguration message may include an AS configuration and/or a radio bearer configuration, such as sidelink AS configuration information (e.g., configuration information for one or more sidelink entities for the sidelink between the remote UE and the relay UE), radio AS configuration information (e.g., for the radio access link between the BS and the relay UE), a Uu relaying access stratum configuration, or the like, Paladugu: [0096]).
Regarding claim 12, Paladugu discloses:
A method performed by a base station, wherein the base station is a next generation NodeB (gNB), comprising (A wireless network may include a number of base stations (BSs). a BS may be referred to as a Node B, a gNB, an access point (AP), a radio head, a transmit receive point (TRP), a New Radio (NR) BS, a 5G Node B, or the like. a method of wireless communication, performed by a base station, Paladugu: [0004]-[0005], [0007]):
receiving, by a control plane of the base station from a user plane of the base station, information related to traffic conditions of a second terminal device in radio resource control (RRC) connected state being relayed by a first terminal device and traffic conditions of the first terminal device that acts as a terminal device to network relay for the second terminal device (access stratum configuration indicates a parameter associated with a radio resource control (RRC) state operation; and receive or transmit control-plane or user-plane traffic associated with the remote UE via the one or more bearers. the relay UE (e.g., UE 120) performs operations associated with UE to network relay. relay UE may relay control-plane or user-plane traffic between the remote UE and the network entity via the one or more bearers, Paladugu: Fig. 12, [0013], [0168], [0175], [0183], [0187]); and
Paladugu does not explicitly disclose:
determining, by the control plane, whether the first terminal device should enter RRC non-connected state based on the received information of traffic conditions of the second terminal device and traffic conditions of the first terminal device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gurumoorthy teaches:
determining, by the control plane, whether the first terminal device should enter a RRC non-connected state based on the received information of traffic conditions of the first terminal device (a cellular device may indicate a preferred target state (e.g., RRC inactive or RRC idle), based on its traffic pattern and/or other assistance parameters. The network may choose to honor the device's recommendation, or select an alternative target state, and may use the network's selected RRC connection release mechanism to transition the device to the requested target state, Gurumoorthy: [0097]).
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 modify Paladugu in view of Gurumoorthy in order to further modify determining whether the first terminal device should enter RRC non-connected state based on the received information from the teachings of Gurumoorthy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because such a state may improve the power
saving capability of a wireless device, e.g., in comparison to operating in a RRC connected state and improve wireless device power usage efficiency, among various possibilities (Gurumoorthy: [0074], [0076]).
Yet, Paladugu in view of Gurumoorthy do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the CU-CP, prior to placing the first terminal device in the RRC non-connected state, to send a request for the second terminal device to attempt switching from the first terminal device when the second terminal device is in the RRC connected state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP_R2_68199 teaches:
wherein the CU-CP, prior to placing the first terminal device in the RRC non-connected state, to send a request for the second terminal device to attempt switching from the first terminal device when the second terminal device is in the RRC connected state (For the RRC_CONNECTED evolved remote UE, if it transmits/receives the CP/UP from eNB, it acts as the normal RRC_IDLE UE. The cell measurement and cell (re-)selection is still necessary for the evolved remote UE since the evolved remote UE may switch its path from PC5 to Uu in case that the signal from evolved relay UE is not good enough. In addition, the remote UE may change its serving cell together with connected relay UE under the control of network. So the network controlled mobility still needs to be supported, 3GPP: Table 2, Proposal 2),
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 modify Paladugu and Gurumoorthy in view of 3GPP_R2_68199 in order to further modify sending a request for the second terminal device to attempt switching from the first terminal device when the second terminal device is in the RRC connected state from the teachings of 3GPP_R2_68199.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the evolved remote UE behaviour in RRC_IDLE and RRC_CONNECTED state basically follows the legacy UE with several adjustments (3GPP_R2_68199: Proposal 2).
Regarding claim 13, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Paladugu further discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the information related to the traffic conditions of the second terminal device and traffic conditions of the first terminal device is a terminal device level inactivity status indicated for the first terminal device (the parameter associated with the RRC state operation indicates a discontinuous reception configuration or an inactivity timer for the remote UE. access stratum configuration indicates a parameter associated with a radio resource control (RRC) state operation; and receive or transmit control-plane or user-plane traffic associated with the remote UE via the one or more bearers. the relay UE (e.g., UE 120) performs operations associated with UE to network relay, Paladugu: Fig. 12, [0131], [0183], [0187]); and
Paladugu in view of 3GPP_R2_68199 do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first terminal device is determined to enter RRC non-connected state according to the terminal device level inactivity status indicated for the first terminal device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gurumoorthy teaches:
wherein the first terminal device is determined to enter RRC non-connected state according to the terminal device level inactivity status indicated for the first terminal device (wireless device may indicate a preferred target RRC state to which to transition when released from the RRC connected state. wireless device may further indicate a preferred data inactivity timer length for the wireless device, e.g., which may be used by the wireless device and the cellular base station as a basis for determining when an implicit RRC state transition should occur, Gurumoorthy: [0080]-[0081]).
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 modify Paladugu and 3GPP_R2_68199 in view of Gurumoorthy in order to further modify determining the first terminal device to enter RRC non-connected state according to the terminal device level inactivity status indicated for the first terminal device from the teachings of Gurumoorthy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because such a state may improve the power
saving capability of a wireless device, e.g., in comparison to operating in a RRC connected state and improve wireless device power usage efficiency, among various possibilities (Gurumoorthy: [0074], [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Paladugu further discloses:
The method according to claim 13, further comprising:
sending, by the control plane to the user plane, a first request for bearer context setup for the first terminal device, wherein the first request indicates a condition under which terminal device level inactivity monitoring should be performed (the radio access connection establishment message comprises a radio resource control message associated with transitioning from a radio resource control idle state operation or a radio resource control inactive state operation to a radio resource control connected state operation. the access stratum configuration indicates at least a parameter associated with an RRC state operation (e.g., a discontinuous reception configuration parameter, an inactivity timer parameter, or the like), Paladugu: [0163], [0175]).
Regarding claim 16, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Paladugu further discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the information related to the traffic conditions of the one or more second terminal devices and the first terminal device comprises one or more of (the parameter associated with the RRC state operation indicates a discontinuous reception configuration or an inactivity timer for the remote UE. access stratum configuration indicates a parameter associated with a radio resource control (RRC) state operation; and receive or transmit control-plane or user-plane traffic associated with the remote UE via the one or more bearers. the relay UE (e.g., UE 120) performs operations associated with UE to network relay, Paladugu: Fig. 12, [0131], [0183], [0187]):
a result of terminal device level inactivity monitoring performed independently for the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices (the parameter associated with the RRC state operation indicates a discontinuous reception configuration or an inactivity timer for the remote UE, Paladugu: [0131]);
a result of data radio bearer (DRB) level inactivity monitoring performed for DRBs related to the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices (the remote UE and the relay UE may configure the one or more SRBs and/or the one or more DRBs in accordance with the configuration information. "configuring a bearer" may refer to configuring an NR-SDAP and/or NR-PDCP entity for the bearer, mapping a PCS logical channel to the bearer, and/or the like, Paladugu: [0087]); and
a result of protocol data unit (PDU) session level inactivity monitoring performed for PDU sessions related to the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices (a PCS-RLC component of the remote UE may be configured to handle the NR-PDCP protocol data unit (PDU) format, which may enable the handling of N control-plane and user-plane PDCP PDUs, Paladugu: [0087]).
Claims 3, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu-
Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 and in further view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #96, R2-168211 (Reno, Nevada, USA, 14th – 18th November 2016; Document for: Discussion, Control plane states, Ericsson, hereafter “3GPP”).
Regarding claim 3, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 2, wherein when there is no traffic received from and sent to the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices, the first terminal device is determined as inactive.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein when there is no traffic received from and sent to the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices, the first terminal device is determined as inactive (When all Remote UEs have entered RRC_IDLE, and the Relay UE has no traffic on its own, it should be safe to release the RRC connection also for the Relay UE, 3GPP: Page 3, Lines 16-21).
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 modify Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 in view of 3GPP in order to further modify determining the first terminal device as inactive when there is no traffic received from and sent to the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it becomes clearer considering non-3GPP technologies for the relay link (3GPP: Page 3, Lines 36-37).
Regarding claim 14, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 13, further comprising:
determining, by the control plane, the one or more second terminal devices to enter RRC non-connected state according to the terminal device level inactivity status indicated for the first terminal device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
determining, by the control plane, the one or more second terminal devices to enter RRC non-connected state according to the terminal device level inactivity status indicated for the first terminal device (When all Remote UEs have entered RRC_IDLE, and the Relay UE has no traffic on its own, it should be safe to release the RRC connection also for the Relay UE, 3GPP: Page 3, Lines 16-21).
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 modify Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 in view of 3GPP in order to further modify determining the one or more second terminal devices to enter RRC non-connected state according to the terminal device level inactivity status indicated for the first terminal device from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it becomes clearer considering non-3GPP technologies for the relay link (3GPP: Page 3, Lines 36-37).
Regarding claim 17, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Paladugu further discloses:
the result of the terminal device level inactivity monitoring indicates that the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices are inactive (the parameter associated with the RRC state operation indicates a discontinuous reception configuration or an inactivity timer for the remote UE, Paladugu: [0131]);
the result of the DRB level inactivity monitoring indicates that the DRBs related to the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices are inactive (the remote UE and the relay UE may configure the one or more SRBs and/or the one or more DRBs in accordance with the configuration information. "configuring a bearer" may refer to configuring anNR-SDAP and/or NR-PDCP entity for the bearer, mapping a PCS logical channel to the bearer, and/or the like, Paladugu: [0087]); and
the result of the PDU session level inactivity monitoring indicates that the PDU sessions related to the first terminal device and the one or more second terminal devices are inactive (a PCS-RLC component of the remote UE may be configured to handle the NR-PDCP protocol data unit (PDU) format, which may enable the handling of NR control-plane and user-plane PDCP PDUs, Paladugu: [0087]).
Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 16, wherein the first terminal device is determined to enter RRC non-connected state when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied:
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the first terminal device is determined to enter RRC non-connected state when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied (When all Remote UEs have entered RRC_IDLE, and the Relay UE has no traffic on its own, it should be safe to release the RRC connection also for the Relay UE, 3GPP: Page 3, Lines 16-21):
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 modify Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 in view of 3GPP in order to further modify determining first terminal device to enter RRC non-connected state when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it becomes clearer considering non-3GPP technologies for the relay link (3GPP: Page 3, Lines 36-37).
Regarding claim 18, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 16, wherein the first terminal device is determined not to enter RRC non-connected state when at least one of the one or more second terminal devices is determined to be kept in RRC connected state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the first terminal device is determined not to enter RRC non-connected state when at least one of the one or more second terminal devices is determined to be kept in RRC connected state (RAN2 should currently focus on the case where the Relay UE is in RRC_CONNECTED: RAN2 should focus on the case where a Relay UE is in RRC_CONNECTED when at least one Remote UE is connected to it, 3GPP: Page 3, Lines 26-29).
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 modify Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 in view of 3GPP in order to further modify determining the first terminal device not to enter RRC non-connected state when at least one of the one or more second terminal devices is determined to be kept in RRC connected state from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it becomes clearer considering non-3GPP technologies for the relay link (3GPP: Page 3, Lines 36-37).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 and in further view of Dai et al. (US 2021/0329548 Al, hereinafter “Dai”).
Regarding claim 23, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the base station comprises a distributed unit (DU) and a central unit (CU).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dai teaches:
wherein the base station comprises a distributed unit (DU) and a central unit (CU) (The first access device includes a DU, and the second access device includes a CU. In a network structure, a network device may include a centralized unit (CU) node, a distributed unit (DU) node, a RAN device including a CU node and a DU node, or a RAN device including a control plane CU node (CU-CP node), a user plane CU node (CU-UP node), and a DU node, Dai: [0044], [0154]).
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 modify Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 in view of Dai in order to further modify comprising the base station with a distributed unit (DU) and a central unit (CU) from the teachings of Dai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it could reduce signaling overheads and power consumption of a terminal device (Dai: [0012]).
Regarding claim 24, Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199-Dai teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 23, further comprising:
when determining that the first terminal device should enter RRC non-connected state,
sending, by the control plane to the DU, one or more third requests for bearer context release.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dai teaches:
when determining that the first terminal device should enter RRC non-connected state (if the terminal device still has no data to transmit until the timer expires (in other words, times out), the terminal device (and/or the access device) may determine that the terminal device ends the inactive state, Dai: [0205], [0212]),
sending, by the control plane to the DU, one or more third requests for bearer context release (access device initiates an RRC connection release command to the terminal device, so that the terminal device enters the idle state, Dai: [0205]).
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 modify Paladugu-Gurumoorthy-3GPP_R2_68199 in view of Dai in order to further modify determining that the first terminal device should enter RRC non-connected state and sending one or more third requests for bearer context release from the teachings of Dai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it could reduce signaling overheads and power consumption of a terminal device (Dai: [0012]).
Conclusion
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the
specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467