DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 13 August 2026.
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, 17-19, 21-25, 27-29 and 31-34 were pending in the previous Office action mailed on 13 May 2026.
No amendments have been filed since the mailing of the previous Office action.
Claims 15, 17-19, 21-25, 27-29 and 31-34 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument to pages 6-7 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, ¶ 223 of the Specification as originally filed fully supports “wherein the second set of one or more SIBs comprises at least one additional SIB that was not included in the first set of one or more SIBs indicated by the first request,” because ¶ 223 discloses, in pertinent part, “if such list of interested SIBs/SI changes, a remote WTRU may send a new list of interested SIBs/SI to the relay WTRU,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed. See MPEP § 2163, specifically, MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(2).
Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure." Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2163 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Here, independent claims 15 and 25 were amended in Amendments filed on 16 April 2026 to include “wherein the second set of one or more SIBs comprises at least one additional SIB that was not included in the first set of one or more SIBs indicated by the first request” (hereinafter the feature at issue) amongst other amendments.
In comparing the scope of the original disclosure with claims 15 and 25 as they are currently written, the scope of the portion of the disclosure at issue, especially read in context of the Specification as a whole, is significantly broader than the scope of the feature at issue. Before the effective filing date of the instant application, a generally-accepted definition for “change” as used in the original disclosure is “to become different, or to make someone or something different”. “Change,” OneLook Dictionary Search, accessed via the Wayback Machine of Archive.org captured on 27 January 2012, https://web.archive.org/web/ 20120127013143/https://onelook.com/?w=change, accessed on 22 September 2026, p. 1, Verb, first bullet point, quoting Macmillan. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and appreciate that a change to a list includes, but is not necessarily limited to, deceasing a size of the list by one or more entries until the list is null, increasing the size of the list by one or more entries, replacing entries within the list, and re-incorporating entries in a second request there were in a first request but removed from the list in an intervening request.
Thus, the original disclosure does not necessarily include support for the feature at issue, and silence on limiting “changes” to adding additional entries to a list of interested SIBs/SI that were not requested in a first request is not necessarily supported by the original disclosure. Therefore, the original disclosure lacks written description support to indicate that the application possessed the claimed invention as the claims are currently written, and the rejection of claims 15 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained. Further, for at least the reasons provided above, the rejection of claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34 is maintained, because at least these claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend.
In response to Applicant’s argument to page 7 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34 were not indicated as including new subject matter that may be incompatible, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As provided in the previous Office action, and maintained below, claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for inheriting the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend. By depending on claims 15 or 25, claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34 necessarily include all of the features of claims 15 or 25, which is why they also inherit their deficiencies. Thus, claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34 also necessarily include claiming the combination of features of claims 15 or 25 and the claims of 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34, respectively. No portion of ¶ 223 appears to support the combination of at least requesting a previously unrequested SIB wherein: the first request is based on a list of known SIBs associated with the first WTRU (i.e., claims 21 and 31), the first WTRU receiving a an SI updated from the second WTRU (i.e., claims 22 and 32), sending the first request via a PC5-RRC message request (i.e., claims 23 and 33), or the sidelink connection is based on a connection status of the first WTRU with Uu (i.e., claims 24 and 34). Thus, indication of the written description further not supporting the combination of features of the dependent claims is inherent to an indication that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend, as provided in the previous Office action. Therefore, if applicant believes that other portions of the original disclosure support the combination of features from the dependent claims, those portions should also be sited by applicant when indicating support for the claims as they are currently written. Since support for claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34 is not provided for by the original disclosure for at least the reasons provided above for why claims 15 and 25 are not supported, claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34 are likewise deficient. Therefore, the rejection of claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-29 and 31-34 is maintained below.
In response to Applicant’s argument to pages 8-9 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Lin et al. (US 2022/0095411, hereinafter Lin) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0150071) do not obviate claims 15 and 25, because neither reference discloses all of the features of the independent claims, 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).
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. When determining whether the "relevant field of endeavor" test is met, the examiner should consider "explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380, 2019 USPQ2d 430083 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212). As for the "reasonably pertinent" test, the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification. In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). See also In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348, 98 USPQ2d 1991, 1993 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Here, while applicant’s statement of facts that Lin was indicated as not disclosing a first WTRU sending a second request and receiving a second response, and Lee does not appear to disclose sending or receiving of analogous sidelink messages between user devices, because Lee is directed to communication of system information between user equipment (UE) and a cell, is factually correct, applicant argument does not appear to address whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found the features at issue to be obvious in view of the combination of the prior art. Lee is both in the same field of endeavor as Lin and is reasonably pertinent to the problem solved in Lin, because both references are related to requesting and provisioning of system information, such as in the form of System Information Blocks as sited in the previous Office action. One having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest possible effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to apply the lessons taught in Lee, although directed to the provision of system information from a cell to a UE, to Lin, directed to the provision of system information in sidelink communication, because a UE may require system information specific to the UE and the situation that the UE is in. Lee ¶¶ 118 and 153.
Applicant’s argument that Lee cannot be combined with Lin to each a first request and a second request, because Lee does not disclose a first request prior to receiving first system information ignores Lin’s disclosure of such a first request and response and Lee’s unambiguous disclosure of a first system information request as illustrated in Fig. 10 and described as described at ¶ 121 of Lee, as cited in the previous Office action. Lin and Lee overlap in that a UE, or equivalent, receives system information responsive to a first request for system information, and Lee further provides that a request is made for system information that was not previously provided, and then that additional information is provided. Lee Figs. 10, 14, ¶¶ 119-121, 150-152, and 154. Therefore, although Lee may not disclose an explicit request for the first transmission of system information, the combination of Lin and Lee appear to disclose all of the features of claims 15 and 25 as provided in the previous Office action. Therefore, the prior art rejection of claims 15 and 25 are maintained below.
Since applicant did not specifically challenge whether the prior art discloses the claimed inventions of the dependent claims beyond arguing that the features of independent claims were not taught by the prior art of record, the prior art rejection of dependent claims is maintained below for at least the reasons provided above.
Therefore, the rejections of 13 May 2026 are maintained below, and made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15, 17-19, 21-25, 27-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 15, “wherein the second set of one or more SIBs comprises at least one additional SIB that was not included in the first set of one or more SIBs indicated by the first request” appears to lack written description support in the original disclosure, specifically an additional SIB not included in a first set of one or more SIBs.
Regarding Claims 17-19 and 21-24, by depending on claim 15, claims 17-19 and 21-24 inherit the deficiencies of claim 15.
Regarding Claims 25, 27-29, and 31-34, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 25, 27-29, and 31-34, are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 15, 17-19 and 21-24, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
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, 17-18, 23-25, 17-28, 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 Lee et al. (US 2019/0150071, previously cited, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 15, Lin discloses a first Wireless Transmit/Receive Unit (WTRU) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 4B and ¶¶ 144-146 disclose remote and relay user equipment (UEs) each including processors, the UE implementing and being configured to perform the disclosed embodiments of the rest of the disclosure) configured to:
establish a sidelink (SL) connection with a second WTRU (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5, and ¶¶ 147-148 disclose the remote UE having an SL bearer/PC5 RLC channel established upon confirmation of permission to perform SL relay between the remote UE and the relay UE — an SL connection is established upon authorization for the relay UE to perform relaying);
send a first request for a first set of one or more system information blocks (SIBs) to the second WTRU (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5, and ¶¶ 147-148 and 157-159 disclose the remote UE, in an idle/inactive state, informing 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);
receive a first response in a first PC5-radio resource control (RRC) message from the second WTRU (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5, ¶¶ 147, and 154-160 disclose the idle/inactive remote UE receiving a response to the request in an PC5-RRC message, such as RRCReconfigurationSidelink), wherein the first response in the first PC5-RRC message comprises the first set of one or more SIBs (Figs. 4C, 5 and ¶¶ 147, 154-156, and 160 disclose the RRCReconfigurationSidelink as including the requested SIB), wherein the first response is received in the first PC5-RRC message from the second WTRU during operation in accordance with an RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE state (Id. further discloses the remote UE as idle/inactive).
Lin may not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to:
send a second request for a second set of one or more SIBs to the second WTRU, wherein the second set of one or more SIBs comprises at least one additional SIB that was not included in the first set of one or more SIBs indicated by the first request; and
receive a second response in a second PC5-RRC message from the second WTRU, wherein the second response in the second PC5-RRC message comprises the second set of one or more SIBs.
Lin may not explicitly disclose:
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses a first WTRU comprising a processor configured to:
send a second request for a second set of one or more SIBs to the second WTRU, wherein the second set of one or more SIBs comprises at least one additional SIB that was not included in the first set of one or more SIBs indicated by the first request (Figs. 10, 14, ¶¶ 119-121 and 150-152 disclose a UE receiving information on an area (i.e., system information), determining that an essential SIB is missing, such as by detecting a change in area, and requesting the missing essential SIB, such as in a Cell Update/Addition request message, wherein the missing essential SIB may be essential SI for the changed area that was not included with the initial SI for the initial area); and
receive a second response in a second PC5-RRC message from the second WTRU, wherein the second response in the second PC5-RRC message comprises the second set of one or more SIBs (Fig. 14 and ¶ 154 disclose the UE receiving a Cell Update/Addition confirmation response message including the requested SI).
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 in order to have a remote UE recognize that it requires SI that is essential that was not previously requested or provided, such as when the remote UE moves to a new area and requires SI that is essential for the operating in the new area, or when previous SI does not include SI essential for features specific to the remote UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because SI that is provided first may not relate to a particular feature that a remote UE determines it wants to use, or SI may change from one area to the next (Lee ¶¶ 118 and 153).
Regarding Claim 17, Lin-Lee disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin discloses wherein the first request 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 RRC IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE requesting SIB(s) from the relay UE via a PC5-RRC message).
Regarding Claim 18, Lin-Lee disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin may not explicitly disclose wherein the second request for the second set of one or more SIBs is sent to the second WTRU based on a determination that the first request for the first set of one or more SIBs sent to the second WTRU did not indicate a request for the at least one additional SIB that was not included in the first set of one or more SIBs.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the second request for the second set of one or more SIBs is sent to the second WTRU based on a determination that the first request for the first set of one or more SIBs sent to the second WTRU did not indicate a request for the at least one additional SIB that was not included in the first set of one or more SIBs (Figs. 10, 14, ¶¶ 119-121 and 150-153 disclose a UE receiving information on an area (i.e., system information), determining that an essential SIB is missing, such as by detecting a change in area, and requesting the missing essential SIB, such as in a Cell Update/Addition request message, wherein the missing essential SIB may be essential SI for the changed area that was not included with the initial SI for the initial 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 in order to have a remote UE recognize that it requires SI that is essential that was not previously requested or provided, such as when the remote UE moves to a new area and requires SI that is essential for the operating in the new area, or when previous SI does not include SI essential for features specific to the remote UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because SI that is provided first may not relate to a particular feature that a remote UE determines it wants to use, or SI may change from one area to the next (Lee ¶¶ 118 and 153).
Regarding Claim 23, Lin-Lee disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin discloses wherein the first request is sent via a PC5-RRC message request (Figs. 4C, 4D, 5, and ¶¶ 148, 150, and 157-159 disclose the remote UE transmitting the request in a UE SRB message or a PC5-RRC message, such as an RRCSystemInfoReq message as a type of PC5-RRC message).
Regarding Claim 24, Lin-Lee disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin discloses wherein the SL connection is based on a connection status of the first WTRU with Uu (Figs. 4C, 5, and ¶¶ 148, 150, and 157-159 disclose the remote UE transmitting the request in a Uu SRB message or a PC5-RRC message, such as an RRCSystemInfoReq message as a type of PC5-RRC message, depending on the RRC connection status of the remote UE — Figs. 4C and 5 illustrate the remote UE as in an RRC-IDLE/INACTIVE state).
Regarding Claims 25, 27-28, and 33-34, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 25, 27-28, and 33-34 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 15, 17-18, and 23-24, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin-Lee 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-Lee discloses the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin-Lee 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, 4:22-32, 4:66-5:16 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; 3:32-47 disclose the 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-Lee in order to enable a requesting remote UE, which receives multiple responses of system information from a plurality of 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 UE’s requested service, and/or avoid relay UEs that are already serving other UEs (Karabulut 3:56-67).
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-Lee as applied to claims 15 and 25 above, and further in view of Sheng (US 2018/0095411, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 21, Lin-Lee disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin-Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of one or more SIBs received is based on a list of known SIBs associated with the first WTRU.
However, in analogous art, Sheng discloses wherein the first set of one or more SIBs 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 form 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-Lee 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 the 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 Lin-Lee as applied to claims 15 and 25 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 2018/0167918, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 22, Lin-Lee disclose the first WTRU of claim 15.
Lin-Lee 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 SIB (SIBn) is updated, and the access node automatically transmitting the SIBn in a broadcast which is received by the wireless terminal; Figs. 29-30 and ¶¶ 161-162 disclose where the updated SIBn may or may not be transmitted depending on the updated value tag of the SIBn).
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-Lee in order to provide updated 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights