DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 3 December 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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 15-34 were pending the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 21 October 2025.
Claims 15, 17-23, 25, and 27-33 were amended in amendments filed on 3 December 2025.
Claims 15-34 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument on pages 7-8 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the prior art of record does not disclose a first WTRU receiving a Uu signaling radio bearer message including at least one SIB from a second WTRU, because the primary reference was previously admitted to not disclose this subject matter and the secondary reference discloses transmission of a signal including security information, not a SIB, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, as cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 21 October 2025, Lin et al. (US 2022/0095411, hereinafter Lin), at Fig. 4D and ¶¶ 157-158, disclose step 414, wherein a remote UE is in a Radio Resource Control Connected state (RRC_CONNECTED) via a L2 relay of a relay UE, and the relay UE forwards an SRB0 or SRB1 message including a requested system information block (SIB) to the remote UE in response to a dedicated SIB request requesting specific SIBs from the remote UE. Fig. 4C and ¶ 155 disclose the SRB0 response forwarded by the relay UE to the remote UE as carried in a PC5-RRC message as a container including the message for Uu SRB0, but neither RRC states of the relay UE nor of the remote UE are disclosed in that embodiment, and the embodiments illustrated by Figs. 4C and 4D are not explicitly disclosed as usable together. Therefore, Lin, as the primary reference, teaches all of the elements of the limitation at issue, except that Lin does not appear to explicitly disclose that, when either the relay UE or the remote UE are RRC_CONNECTED, the SRB message received by the remote UE from the relay UE is a Uu SRB message.
However, as further provided in the Non-Final Rejection, Tenny et al. (US 2022/0086931, hereinafter Tenny) bridges the gap between the claims and Lin by rendering obvious that, when a remote UE or a relay UE are RRC_CONNECTED, an SRB message sent by the relay UE to the remote UE is a Uu SRB message, because Tenny, at Fig. 3 and ¶ 27, discloses a remote UE entering an RRC_CONNECTED state with a base station, and, at ¶ 28, discloses security messages as forwarded by a relay UE to the remote UE on SRB1 (similar to Lin’s Fig 4D step 414, wherein the requested SIBs are sent on SRB1 to the remote UE), and that an initial RRCReconfiguration message is sent by the gNB to the remote UE via the relay UE after SRB1 establishment, which appears to at least imply that the RRCReconfiguration message is sent on the SRB1. Since Tenny discloses SRB1 as used for communicating messages between the remote UE and base station, SRB1 appears to be disclosed as an example of a Uu SRB.
Tenny and Lin are in the same field of endeavor, because they similarly disclose operations of communicating system-related information between a remote UE and base station via a relay UE using one or more SRBs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tenny to modify Lin in order to configure PC5 RLC channels of a Uu SRB, such as SRB1, which results in forwarded SRB messages being provided when a remote UE is RCC CONNECTED. One would have been motivated to do this, because the use of a SRB associated with SL RLCs appears to facilitate set up of data radio bearers following establishment of security between the remote UE and gNB (Tenny ¶ 28).
In view of the amendments, reliance of Sheng (US 2018/0092027) is no longer necessary for rejecting the independent claims. Therefore, the prior art rejection of the claims is maintained below and adjusted as necessitated by amendment and increase clarity.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15, 17-18, 20-21, 25, 27-28, and 30-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-9, and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,192 (hereinafter '192). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘192 anticipate the scopes of the instant application’s claims at issue at further detailed below.
Claims 15, 17-18, 20-21, 25, 27-28, and 30-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-9, and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,192 (hereinafter '192).
Regarding Claim 15, claim 1 of ‘192 in view of Sheng discloses the scope of the instant application’s claim at issue as further detailed in the table below.
Instant Application
‘192
15. (Currently Amended) A first Wireless Transmit/Receive Unit (WTRU) comprising:
1. A first Wireless Transmit/Receive Unit (WTRU) comprising:
a processor configured to:
a processor configured to:
establish a sidelink (SL) connection with a second WTRU;
establish a sidelink (SL) connection with a second WTRU;
determine to obtain a first set of one or more system information blocks (SIBs);
send a request for at least one system information block (SIB) to the second WTRU; and
send a first request for the first set of one or more SIBs, wherein the first request for the first set of one or more SIBs is sent in a first Uu signaling radio bearer (SRB) message via the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC CONNECTED state;
receive a response comprising the requested at least one SIB from the second WTRU, wherein the requested at least one SIB is received via a Uu signaling radio bearer (SRB) message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC CONNECTED state or the requested at least one SIB is received via a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE state.
receive a first response comprising the first set of one or more SIBs, wherein the first response is received in a second Uu SRB message via the second WTRU during operation in accordance with the RRC CONNECTED state;
determine to obtain a second set of one or more SIBs;
send a request for at least one system information block (SIB) to the second WTRU; and*
send a second request for the second set of one or more SIBs, wherein the second request for the second set of one or more SIBs is sent in a first PC5 radio resource control (RRC) message to the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC IDLE or INACTIVE state; and
receive a response comprising the requested at least one SIB from the second WTRU, wherein the requested at least one SIB is received via a Uu signaling radio bearer (SRB) message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC CONNECTED state or the requested at least one SIB is received via a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE state.*
receive a second response comprising the second set of one or more SIBs, wherein the second response is received in a second PC5 RRC message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with the RRC IDLE or INACTIVE state.
* repeated limitation to illustrate scope as encompassing multiple limitations of the reference patent claim
As provided in the table above, the scope of claim 1 of ‘192 is encompassed by the scope of claim 15 of the instant application except for the features related to determining that system information in memory is not valid system information. Therefore, claim 15 is an obvious variant of ‘192’s claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, claim 17 is an obvious variant of claim 1 of ‘192 for the same reasons as claim 15 is an obvious variant of claim 1 of ‘192 since claim 17 effectively limits claim 15’s alternative features for how a response is received to one of the alternatives already shown above to be disclosed by claim 1 of ‘192. Further, claim 1 of ‘192 explicitly requires “wherein the second response is received in a second PC5 RRC message from the second WTRU”. Therefore claim 17 is an obvious variant of ‘192’s claim 1 in view of Sheng.
Regarding Claim 18, claim 18 is an obvious variant of claim 2 of ‘192, because claim 2 of ‘192 discloses the scope of the instant application’s claim at issue as further detailed in the table below.
Instant Application
‘192
18. The first WTRU of claim 15,
2. The WTRU of claim 1,
wherein the request for the at least one SIB is sent to the second WTRU based on a determination that a previous request for at least one SIB sent to the second WTRU did not indicate a request for the at least one SIB desired by the first WTRU.
wherein the processor configured to determine to obtain the second set of one or more SIBs comprises the processor being configured to determine the second set of one or more SIBs based on at least one SIB in the second set of SIBs being a desired SIB that was not previously requested in the first set of one or more SIBs, and wherein the processor is configured to determine to obtain a third set of one or more SIBS based on at least one SIB in the third set of SIBS being a desired SIB that was not previously requested in the second set of one or more SIBs.
As provided in the table above, claim 2 of ‘192 is directed to a first WTRU determining a request for a second set of SIBs is based on determining that at least one desired SIB was not previously requested in a first set of SIBs, and claim 18 of the instant application is directed to determining what system information to request based on the system information being desired but not requested in a previous request. Thus, the terms of claim 18 appear to encompass the scope of claim 2 such that all of the features of claim 18 are anticipated by claim 2 of ‘192. Therefore, claim 18 of the instant application has no patentable difference from claim 2 of ‘192 in view of Sheng.
Regarding Claim 20, claim 20 is an obvious variant of claim 6 of ‘192 for the reasons provided above regarding claim 15, and claim 6 of ‘192 discloses the scope of claim 20 of the instant application as provided in the table below.
Instant Application
‘192
20. The first WTRU of claim 15,
6. The first WTRU of claim 1,
wherein the requested at least one SIB is partially received in a discovery message and partially received in a PC5-RRC message.
wherein the processor is configured to receive the second response partially in a discovery message and partially in the second PC5 RRC message.
As provided in the table above, claim 6 of ‘192 requires receiving a response partially in a discovery message and partially in the second PC5 RRC message, and claim 20 of the instant application. While claim 20 requires the requested at least one SIB be partially received in a discovery message and a PC5-RRC message, claim 6 more specifically requires partially receiving the second response in a discovery message and the second PC5 RRC message, because the second response is required by claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, to comprise a second set of one or more System Information Blocks (SIBs). Thus, claim 6’s “second response” is an example of “requested system information.” Therefore, claim 20 is an obvious variant of claim 6 of ‘192.
Regarding Claim 21, claim 21 is an obvious variant of claim 7 of ‘192 as provided above regarding claim 15, and claim 7 of ‘192 discloses the scope of claim 21 of the instant application as provided in the table below.
Instant Application
‘192
21. The first WTRU of claim 15,
7. The first WTRU of claim 1,
wherein the requested at least one SIB received is based on a list of known SIBs associated with the first WTRU.
wherein at least one of the first request or the second request is based on a list of known SIBs associated with the first WTRU.
Regarding Claims 25, 27–28, and 30–31, these claims are substantially similar to those of claims 15, 17-18, and 20-21, and these claims are rejected under non-statutory double patenting in view of ‘192’s claims 8-9, and 12-13 and Sheng, under the same reasoning provided above for why claims 15, 17-18, and 20-21 are obvious variants by claims 1-2 and 6-7 of ‘192 in view of Sheng.
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.
Claims 15-17, 23-27, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0095411, previously cited, hereinafter Lin) in view of Tenny et al. (US 2022/0086931, previously cited, hereinafter Tenny).
Regarding Claim 15, Lin discloses a first Wireless Transmit/Receive Unit (WTRU) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 4B and ¶¶ 144-145 disclose relay and remote user equipment (UEs) as each including processors; and ¶ 146 discloses that the UEs of Fig. 4B may implement and be configured to performed the disclosed embodiments of the rest of the disclosure of Lin) configured to:
establish a sidelink (SL) connection with a second WTRU (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5 and ¶¶ 147-148 disclose the remote UE have a SL bearer/PC5 RLC channel established upon confirmation of the permission to perform SL relay between the remote UE and the relay UE, e.g. an PC5 RLC channel can be set up when the relay UE is authorized for relaying);
send a request for at least one system information block (SIB) to the second WTRU (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5 and ¶¶ 147-148 and 157- 159 disclose a remote UE in connected mode re-using a dedicated SIB request procedure via the relay UE, or the RRC_CONNECTED remote UE requesting specific SIBs via an end-to-end RRC message, in the case of an RRC Idle/INACTIVE remote UE, the remote UE informs the relay UE of a requested SIB via PC5 signaling (“on a requested SIB” appears to be a typographical error), such as a PC5-RRC message); and
receive a response comprising the requested at least one SIB from the second WTRU (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5, and ¶¶ 147, 154-156, and 157-160 disclose the CONNECTED relay UE forwarding the requested system information (i.e., the requested SIB) to the remote UE in an RRC Reconfiguration message from the base station and forwarded by the relay UE, or the Idle/INACTIVE remote UE receiving a response to the request in a PC5-RRC message, such as RRCReconfigurationSidelink), wherein the requested at least one SIB is received via a Uu signaling radio bearer (SRB) message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC CONNECTED state (Fig. 4D and ¶¶ 157-158 disclose the remote UE receiving the response in a SRB0 message or SRB1 message from the relay UE while the remote UE is RRC_CONNECTED) or the requested at least one SIB is received via a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE state (Fig. 4C, 5 and ¶¶ 147, 154-156 and 160 disclose the remote UE receiving the response including the requested SIB in a PC5-RRC message, such as RRCReconfigurationSidelink while the remote UE is RRC IDLE/INACTIVE).
Lin may not explicitly disclose receiving a Uu signaling radio bearer (SRB) message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC CONNECTED state.
However, Tenny discloses receiving a Uu signaling radio bearer (SRB) message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC CONNECTED state (Fig. 3 and ¶ 27 disclose a remote UE entering an RRC_CONNECTED state with a base station; and ¶ 28 discloses security messages as forwarded by a relay UE to the remote UE on SRB1 (similar to Lin’s Fig 4D step 414, wherein the requested SIBs are sent on SRB1 to the remote UE), and that an initial RRCReconfiguration message is sent by the gNB to the remote UE via the relay UE after SRB1 establishment, which appears to at least imply that the RRCReconfiguration message is sent on the SRB1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tenny to modify Lin in order to configure PC5 RLC channels of a Uu SRB, such as SRB1, which results in forwarded SRB messages being provided when a remote UE is RRC CONNECTED. One would have been motivated to do this, because the use of a SRB associated with SL RLCs appears to facilitate set up of data radio bearers following establishment of security between the remote UE and gNB (Tenny ¶ 28).
Regarding Claim 16, Lin-Tenny disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin may not explicitly disclose wherein the Uu SRB message is mapped to a relayed SL RLC channel.
However, in analogous art, Tenny discloses wherein the Uu SRB message is mapped to a relayed SL RLC channel (Fig. 1 and ¶ 18 disclose a remote UE that’s in an RRC-connected state with a base station, but with poor link quality, so a relay UE helps relay part or all of the remote UE’s traffic; Fig. 3 and ¶ 27 disclose a remote UE entering into an RRC_CONNECTED state with a base station (e.g. gNB); ¶ 28 discloses the remote UE and gNB establishing security with security message (i.e., system information) forwarded through a relay on SRB1 (i.e., a Uu SRB), and the relay UE configuring the remote UE with PC5 RLC channels associated with SRB1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tenny to modify Lin in order to configure PC5 RLC channels of a Uu SRB, such as SRB1, for data radio bearers. One would have been motivated to do this, because the use of a SRB associated with SL RLCs appears to facilitate set up of data radio bearers following establishment of security between the remote UE and gNB (Tenny ¶ 28).
Regarding Claim 17, Lin-Tenny disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin discloses wherein the request for the at least one SIB is sent via a PC5-RRC message when the first WTRU is in the RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE state (Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 159-160 disclose the remote UE receiving the response including the requested SIB in a PC5-RRC message, such as RRCReconfigurationSidelink while the remote UE is RRC IDLE/INACTIVE).
Regarding Claim 23, Lin-Tenny disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin discloses wherein the request for the at least one SIB is sent via a connection comprising a Uu SRB message request or a PC5-RRC message request (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5 and ¶¶ 148, 150, 157-158, and 159 disclose the remote UE transmitting the request in a Uu SRB message or an PC5-RRC message, such a RRCSystemInfoReq message as a type of PC5-RRC message).
Regarding Claim 24, Lin-Tenny disclose the first WTRU of claim 23.
Lin discloses wherein the SL connection is based on a connection status of the first WTRU with Uu (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5 and ¶¶ 148, 150, 157-158, and 159 disclose the remote UE transmitting the request in a Uu SRB message or an PC5-RRC message, such a RRCSystemInfoReq message as a type of PC5-RRC message, depending on the RRC connection status of the remote UE — Figs. 4C and 5 illustrate where the remote UE is in an RRC-IDLE/INACTIVE state, and Fig. 4D illustrates where the remote UE is in an RRC-CONNECTED state).
Regarding Claims 25-27, and 33-34, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 25-27, 31 and 33-34 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 15-17, 21 and 23-24, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin-Tenny as applied to claims 15 and 25 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0150071, previously cited, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 18, Lin-Tenny disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin-Tenny may not explicitly disclose wherein the request for the at least one SIB is sent to the second WTRU based on a determination that a previous request for at least one SIB sent to the second WTRU did not indicate a request for the at least one SIB desired by the first WTRU.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the request for the at least one SIB is sent to the second WTRU based on a determination that a previous request for at least one SIB sent to the second WTRU did not indicate a request for the at least one SIB desired by the first WTRU (Fig. 10 and ¶¶ 119-121 disclose a UE receiving system information, determining that an essential system information block (SIB) is missing, and requesting the missing essential SIB; and Fig. 14 and ¶¶ 150-152 discloses a UE receiving information on an area (i.e., system information), detecting a change in area, and requested essential system information for the new area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lee to modify Lin-Tenny in order to have a remote UE recognize that it requires system information that is essential but not previously provided, such as when the remote moves to a new area and requires system information that is essential for operating in the new area, or when previous system information did not include system information essential for features specific to the remote UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because system information that is provided first may not relate to a particular feature that a remote UE determines it wants to use, or system information may change from one area to the next (Lee ¶¶ 118 and 153).
Regarding Claim 28, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 28 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 18, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin -Tenny as applied to claims 15 and 25 above, and further in view of Karabulut et al. (US 9,973,997, previously cited, hereinafter Karabulut).
Regarding Claim 19, Lin- Tenny disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin- Tenny may not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to receive an identifier of the second WTRU.
However, in analogous art, Karabulut discloses wherein the processor is configured to receive an identifier of the second WTRU (Figs. 2, 4, Col. 4, Lines 22-32 and Col. 4 Line 66 – Col. 5 Line 16 disclose a UE receiving SIBs from one or more relay UEs each including individual network access data information of the relays from which the SIBs were transmitted; Col. 3 Lines 32-47 disclose network access data information as including a relay network ID (i.e., an identifier of the second WTRU) enabling the UE to select a relay from the plurality of UEs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Karabulut to modify Lin- Tenny in order to enable a requesting remote UE that receives multiple response of system information from a plurality relay UEs to select a relay from the plurality of relay UEs. One would have been motivated to do this, because allowing a remote UE to select from a plurality of relay UEs may allow the remote UE to select the best relay UE based on the remote UEs requested service, and/or avoid relay UEs that are already serving other UEs (Karabulut Col. 3 Lines 56-67).
Regarding Claim 29, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 29 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 19, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin-Tenny as applied to claims 15 and 25 above, and further in view of Sheng (US 2018/0095411, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 21, Lin-Tenny disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin-Tenny may not explicitly disclose wherein the requested at least one SIB received is based on a list of known SIBs associated with the first WTRU.
However, in analogous art, Sheng disclose wherein the requested at least one SIB received is based on a list of known SIBs associated with the first WTRU (¶ 290 discloses a remote UE’s (i.e., the first WTRU’s) request for system information as including a list of SIBs suitable for the remote UE and from which a relay UE may select to obtain and include in a response message).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sheng to modify Lin-Tenny in order to have a remote UE's request for system information to include a list of SIBs suitable for the remote UE that are then obtained and provided to the remote UE by a relay UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because including a specific list of SIBs ensures that the remote UE obtains system information that is needed by the remote UE (Sheng ¶ 290).
Regarding Claim 31, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 31 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 21, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LinTenny as applied to claims 15 and 25 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 2018/0167918, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 22, Lin-Tenny disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin-Tenny may not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to receive a system information update from the second WTRU.
However, in analogous art, Ishii discloses wherein the processor is configured to receive a system information update from the second WTRU (Figs. 27-28 and ¶¶ 156-158 disclose a message flow between an access node (i.e., a second WTRU) and a wireless terminal (i.e., the first WTRU), wherein a particular system information block (SIB#n) is updated, and the access node automatically transmitting the SIB#n in a broadcast which is received by the wireless terminal; Figs. 29-30 and ¶¶ 161-162 disclose where the updated SIB#n may or may not be transmitted depending on the updated value tag of the SIB#n).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ishii to modify Lin-Sheng-Tenny in order to provide update system information to a remote UE if the remote UE actually needs the updated system information. One would have been motivated to do this, because providing a mechanism for determining whether updated system information actually needs to be provided to a remote UE allows for the remote UE to be kept current on needed system information while not wasting valuable radio resources where such an update is not necessary, thereby helping the system be efficient (Ishii ¶¶ 6-7).
Regarding Claim 32, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 32 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 22, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final 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