DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 9 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 were previously pending in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 10 September 2025.
Claims 1, 17, and 19 have been amended in amendments filed on 9 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0014960, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a transmission configuration method, wherein the method comprises:
sending, by a first access network device, bearer-related information to a first terminal device (Fig. 9A and ¶ 229 disclose a network (i.e., a base station (BS)) transmitting, us UE1, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message including configurations for split bearers), wherein the bearer-related information is used to instruct the first terminal device to perform cooperative transmission with a second terminal devices (Fig. 9A and ¶¶ 225 and 230 disclose UE1 as handling split bearer operation for carrier aggregation with UE2 via component carrier 1 (CC1) and CC2 to perform sidelink (SL) transmission (i.e., aggregation transmission or DC transmission), wherein, upon receiving the RRC reconfiguration message, UE1 configures split bearers by mapping them to CC1 and CC2 — See the instant application’s Specification (as originally filed, hereinafter Specification) ¶¶ 33-34 describing “cooperative transmission” as aggregation transmission or dual connectivity (DC) transmission);
wherein the bearer-related information is used to configure a bearer for the first terminal device, so that the first terminal device and the second terminal device perform bearer aggregation (¶ 225 discloses UE1 handling split bearer operation (i.e., bearer aggregation); ¶ 240 discloses UE1 performing SL transmission to UE2 using split bearers — see Specification ¶ 37 describing an example of bearer aggregation as a use of a “split bearer”).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the bearer-related information comprises one of:
a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) bearer;
a radio link control (RLC) bearer; or
a PDCP bearer and an RLC bearer (¶¶ 229-233 disclose UE1 receiving the reconfiguration message including configurations for split bearers, a threshold, and channel occupancy measurements on CC1 and CC2 used to configure split bearers by mapping them to CC1 and CC2, including configuring a PDCP entity (i.e., bearer), two RLC entities (i.e. bearers) associated with the PDCP entity, apparently according to the RRC reconfiguration message; ¶¶ 244-245 discloses the threshold as configured for different PDCP entities and/or RLC entities — thus, the RRC Reconfiguration message is disclosed as including information configuring a PDCP entity and/or RLC entities);
and/or
the bearer-related information comprises:
RLC bearers corresponding to PC5 interfaces of the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Id. and ¶¶ 98-99, 118-122 disclose communication between user equipment, including for V2X services, as occurring via a PC5 interface of each UE — thus, SL communication via split-bearers, including RLC entities, is disclosure of RLC entities corresponding to PC5 interfaces of the UEs).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal device satisfies at least one of:
a preset subscription condition;
reporting a user's terminal service usage preference;
having a same setting or status requirement for a same terminal application as the second terminal device;
synchronously receiving service data of a same terminal application with the second terminal device; or
a preset condition for communication with the second terminal device (¶ 225 disclose the method of handling bearers as based on congestion level of the wireless communication system, which includes UE2; ¶¶ 253-255 disclose bearers being handled based on congestion level in a wireless communication system, such as by dynamically selecting a cell or carrier depending on carrier congestion, such as a congestion level associated with a Quality of Service requirement).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises at least one of:
sending, by the first access network device, first configuration signaling to the first terminal device, wherein the first configuration signaling is used to instruct to configure or reconfigure a bearer of the first terminal device (Fig. 9A and ¶ 229 disclose the BS sending the RRC Reconfiguration message to UE1; ¶¶ 114 and 126 disclose that in order for UE1 to operate in Mode 1 or Mode 3, it must be RRC_CONNECTED);
in a case that the second terminal device enters a radio resource control_connected (RRC_connected) state and is within coverage of a same access network device as the first terminal device, sending, by the first access network device, second configuration signaling to the second terminal device, wherein the second configuration signaling is used to instruct to configure or reconfigure a bearer of the second terminal device;
in a case that the second terminal device is not in an RRC_connected state, paging, by the first access network device, the second terminal device, and after the second terminal device enters the RRC_connected state, sending third configuration signaling to the second terminal device, wherein the third configuration signaling is used to instruct to configure or reconfigure a bearer of the second terminal device;
in a case that the first terminal device and the second terminal device are within coverage of different access network devices, after the second terminal device is handed over to coverage of the first access network device, sending, by the first access network device, fourth configuration signaling to the second terminal device, wherein the fourth configuration signaling is used to instruct to configure or reconfigure a bearer of the second terminal device; or
in a case that the first terminal device and the second terminal device are within coverage of different access network devices, sending, by the first access network device, fifth configuration signaling to a second access network device corresponding to the second terminal device, wherein the fifth configuration signaling is used to instruct the second access network device to configure or reconfigure a bearer of the second terminal device.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
reconfiguring, by the first access network device, the bearer-related information (Fig. 9A and ¶ 229 disclose the BS sending the RRC Reconfiguration message to UE1).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the reconfiguring, by the first access network device, the bearer-related information comprises at least one of:
in a case that an answer mode of a user corresponding to the first terminal device is changed, reconfiguring, by the first access network device, the bearer-related information; or
in a case that link quality between the first terminal device and the second terminal device is higher than a second quality threshold, reconfiguring, by the first access network device, the bearer-related information (Figs. 9A-9B and ¶¶ 240-241 disclose UE1 performing SL transmission to UE2 by using split bearers according to channel quality measurement).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
in a case that the second terminal device is handed over from the first access network device to a third access network device, de-configuring, by the first access network device, the bearer-related information (MPEP 2111.04(II) — The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. — Here, the method of claim 1 may be practiced without the second terminal device being handed over to a third access network device; thus, claim 12 also encompasses doing nothing more than what was required by claim 1 in a case where the second terminal is not subject to handover, and the reasoning applied claim 1 is also applied to claim 12).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the first terminal device satisfies a condition for handover from the first access network device to a fourth access network device, the method further comprises one of:
if there are a plurality of remaining terminal devices after the first terminal device is excluded from a plurality of terminal devices, reconfiguring, by the first access network device, corresponding bearers for the remaining terminal devices to perform cooperative transmission;
if there is one remaining terminal device after the first terminal device is excluded from a plurality of terminal devices, reconfiguring, by the first access network device, a bearer of the remaining terminal device as a third bearer type, wherein the third bearer type is presence of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) bearer and a radio link control (RLC) bearer in a same terminal device; or
sending, by the first access network device to the fourth access network device, a first handover request message corresponding to the first terminal device, wherein the first handover request message comprises at least one of the bearer-related information or core network user plane connection information corresponding to the first terminal device (MPEP 2111.04(II) — The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. — Here, the method of claim 1 may be practiced without the second terminal device being handed over to a third access network device; thus, claim 13 also encompasses doing nothing more than what was required by claim 1 in a case where the second terminal is not subject to handover, and the reasoning applied claim 1 is also applied to claim 13).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that a core network user plane connection corresponding to the first terminal device is switched from a first core network user plane connection to a second core network user plane connection, the method further comprises:
placing, by the first access network device, data to be transmitted based on a user plane path corresponding to the second core network user plane connection, after a last endmarker of data to be transmitted based on a user plane path corresponding to the first core network user plane connection (MPEP 2111.04(II) — The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. — Here, the method of claim 1 may be practiced without switching a core network plane connection; thus, claim 14 also encompasses doing nothing more than what was required by claim 1 in a case where core network user plane connection isn’t altered, and the reasoning applied claim 1 is also applied to claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the first terminal device and the second terminal device correspond to different core network user plane connections, the bearer-related information is further used to indicate:
that the first terminal device is to send, to the second terminal device, a first receiving/sending state that is corresponding to a received part and/or a sent part and for cooperative transmission, wherein the first receiving/sending state is used for the second terminal device to continue transmission of an unreceived part and/or an unsent part with a core network device; and
that the first terminal device is to maintain or reset a receiving/sending state (MPEP 2111.04(II) — The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. — Here, the method of claim 1 may be practiced without the terminal devices corresponding to different core network user plane connections; thus, claim 15 also encompasses doing nothing more than what was required by claim 1 in a case where the terminal devices are not disclosed as corresponding to different core network user plane connections, and the reasoning applied claim 1 is also applied to claim 15).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the first terminal device and the second terminal device correspond to different core network user plane connections,
before the sending, by a first access network device, bearer-related information to a first terminal device, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first access network device, a second request sent by the first terminal device or the second terminal device, wherein the bearer-related information is a response to the second request, and the bearer-related information is further used to instruct the first terminal device to send a transmission configuration and a receiving/sending state that are for cooperative transmission to the second terminal device;
and/or
the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first access network device, a third request sent by the first terminal device or the second terminal device; and
sending, by the first access network device, second information to the second terminal device in response to the third request, wherein the second information is used to indicate one of:
that the second terminal device is to initialize an L2 status;
that the second terminal device is to obtain an L2 status from the first terminal device;
a core network configuration established for the second terminal device, and that data of a core network user plane connection corresponding to the second terminal device is located after data of a core network user plane connection corresponding to the first terminal device; or
an access network configuration established for the second terminal device and all receiving/sending states for cooperative transmission by the first terminal device (MPEP 2111.04(II) — The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. — Here, the method of claim 1 may be practiced without the terminal devices corresponding to different core network user plane connections; thus, claim 16 also encompasses doing nothing more than what was required by claim 1 in a case where the terminal devices are not disclosed as corresponding to different core network user plane connections, and the reasoning applied claim 1 is also applied to claim 16).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee discloses a transmission configuration method, wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by a first terminal device, bearer-related information configured by a first access network device (Fig. 9A and ¶ 229 disclose a network (i.e., a base station (BS)) transmitting, us UE1, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message including configurations for split bearers); and
performing, by the first terminal device, cooperative transmission with a second terminal device according to the bearer-related information (Fig. 9A and ¶¶ 225 and 230 disclose UE1 as handling split bearer operation for carrier aggregation with UE2 via component carrier 1 (CC1) and CC2 to perform sidelink (SL) transmission (i.e., aggregation transmission or DC transmission), wherein, upon receiving the RRC reconfiguration message, UE1 configures split bearers by mapping them to CC1 and CC2 — See the instant application’s Specification (as originally filed, hereinafter Specification) ¶¶ 33-34 describing “cooperative transmission” as aggregation transmission or dual connectivity (DC) transmission);
wherein the bearer-related information is used to configure a bearer for the first terminal device, so that the first terminal device and the second terminal device perform bearer aggregation (¶ 225 discloses UE1 handling split bearer operation (i.e., bearer aggregation); ¶ 240 discloses UE1 performing SL transmission to UE2 using split bearers — see Specification ¶ 37 describing an example of bearer aggregation as a use of a “split bearer”).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the bearer-related information comprises:
radio link control (RLC) bearers corresponding to PC5 interfaces of the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Figs. 9A-9B, ¶¶ 234 and 242 disclose UE1 transmitting PDCP PDUs to UE2 via RLC entities; and ¶¶ 70 and 98-99 disclose UEs communicating via the PC5 interface); wherein
in a case that a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) bearer is located in the first terminal device, the performing, by the first terminal device, cooperative transmission with a second terminal device according to the bearer-related information comprises at least one of:
performing, by the first terminal device, split transmission from the PDCP bearer to a plurality of RLC bearers (Id. and ¶ 225 discloses UE1 handling split bearer operation (i.e., bearer aggregation); ¶ 240 discloses UE1 performing SL transmission to UE2 using split bearers);
performing, by the first terminal device, duplication transmission from the PDCP bearer to a plurality of RLC bearers;
transmitting, by the first terminal device, data to the second terminal device through an RLC bearer corresponding to a PC5 interface of the first terminal device (¶¶ 234 and 242 disclose UE1 transmitting PDCP PDUs to UE2 via RLC entities);
mapping, by the first terminal device, an RLC bearer corresponding to the first terminal device to the PDCP bearer, and performing reception processing; or
mapping, by the first terminal device, an RLC bearer corresponding to a PC5 interface of the second terminal device to the PDCP bearer, and performing reception processing;
or
in a case that a PDCP bearer is located in the second terminal device, the performing, by the first terminal device, cooperative transmission with a second terminal device according to the bearer-related information comprises at least one of:
mapping, by the first terminal device, an RLC bearer corresponding to a PC5 interface of the second terminal device to an RLC bearer corresponding to the first terminal device, and performing reception processing; or
sending, by the first terminal device, data received by an RLC bearer corresponding to the first terminal device to the second terminal device through an RLC bearer corresponding to a PC5 interface of the first terminal device.
Regarding Claim 19, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee discloses a terminal device (Fig. 11 and ¶ 267-268 disclose an apparatus of a UE), comprising a memory (¶¶ 269 and 272), a processor (¶¶ 269 and 270), and a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor (¶ 272), wherein when the program or instructions are executed by the processor, steps of the transmission configuration method according to claim 17 are implemented (¶ 267-268 disclose applying the technical features of the disclosure (including Figs. 9A-9B and associated description) to the apparatus of the UE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cai et al. (US 2023/0269799, previously cited, hereinafter Cai).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee disclose the method according to claim 2.
Lee may not explicitly disclose
wherein the bearer-related information further comprises at least one of:
a correspondence between an RLC bearer corresponding to a PC5 interface of the first terminal device and an RLC bearer corresponding to a Uu interface of the first terminal device; or
a correspondence between an RLC bearer corresponding to a PC5 interface of the first terminal device and a PDCP bearer corresponding to a Uu interface of the first terminal device.
However, in analogous art, Cai discloses wherein the bearer-related information further comprises at least one of:
a correspondence between an RLC bearer corresponding to a PC5 interface of the first terminal device and an RLC bearer corresponding to a Uu interface of the first terminal device (Fig. 17, ¶¶ 284 and 286 disclose a network device sending radioBearerConfig information of a Uu SRB and a SL-RLC-ConfigPC5 corresponding to the Uu SRB to a remote/first terminal device via a relay/second terminal device); or
a correspondence between an RLC bearer corresponding to a PC5 interface of the first terminal device and a PDCP bearer corresponding to a Uu interface of the first terminal device (¶ 212 discloses the SL RLC bearer and PDCP entity as corresponding to a Uu SRB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cai to modify Lee in order to configure a relay service for a remote UE via the split bearer between the remote UE and relay UE, thereby having the PDCP bearer or RLC bearer of the split bearer corresponding to the relay UE's Uu interface. One would have been motivated to do this, because such a correspondence may help improve quality of control signaling (Cai ¶ 5).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (US 2020/0359428, previously cited, hereinafter Pan).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before the sending, by a first access network device, bearer-related information to a first terminal device, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first access network device, a first request (¶¶ 114, 126 and 128 disclose an RRC_CONNECTED UE requesting sidelink resources from a BS, such as in Mode 1 or Mode 3 for SL resource allocation).
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein
the first request carries at least one of:
an identifier of the second terminal device;
a correspondence between service data and a bearer type; or
link quality between the first terminal device and the second terminal device.
However, in analogous art, Pan discloses wherein
the first request carries at least one of:
an identifier of the second terminal device;
a correspondence between service data and a bearer type; or
link quality between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Fig. 13 and ¶¶ 194-209 disclose a BS as receiving a request for a SL radio bearer (SLRB) from a first UE (UE1) including UE sidelink capability information of UE1 and its target, UE2, including a maximum bit number of a transport block (TB) of a transmission time unit (TTI), a supported modulation and coding scheme (MCS), whether channel busy ratio reporting is supported, information related to transmission diversity, supported SLRB ID range, supported PC5 QoS flow ID range, supported PDCP related configuration, supported RLC related configuration and supported MAC related configuration — at least some of the capability information appears to be within the scope of indicating a correspondence between service data and a bearer type (e.g., supported SLRB ID range, supported PDCP related configuration, supported RLC related configuration and supported MAC related configuration) and link quality between UE1 and UE2 (e.g., whether CBR reporting is supported, max bit number of a TB in a TTI, supported MCS, TX diversity, and supported PC5 QoS flow ID range) — in order for UE1 to indicate both UE’s capabilities, identifying both UEs explicitly or implicitly is at least implied otherwise the BS could not know which capabilities apply to which UE, neither UE, or both 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 Pan to modify Lee in order to have a UE request the sidelink configuration from the BS, and to further indicate capabilities of the UE and its target UE in the request. One would have been motivated to do this, because reporting the UE sidelink capabilities to the BS may enable the BS to determine a SLRB configuration that is acceptable to both UEs (Pan ¶ 194).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee-Pan disclose the method according to claim 5.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving, by the first access network device, a first request comprises one of:
receiving, by the first access network device, the first request sent by a core network device; or
receiving, by the first access network device, the first request sent by the first terminal device, wherein the first request is carried in dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
However, in analogous art, Pan discloses wherein the receiving, by the first access network device, a first request comprises one of:
receiving, by the first access network device, the first request sent by a core network device; or
receiving, by the first access network device, the first request sent by the first terminal device (Fig. 13 and ¶¶ 194-209 disclose a BS as receiving a request for a SL radio bearer (SLRB) from UE1, wherein UE1 is RRC_CONNECTED), wherein the first request is carried in dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signaling (¶ 249 discloses UE1 sending the request in a first RRC message to the network node (BS)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Pan to modify Lee in order to have a UE request the sidelink configuration from the BS in an RRC message. One would have been motivated to do this, because reporting the UE sidelink capabilities to the BS may enable the BS to determine a SLRB configuration that is acceptable to both UEs (Pan ¶ 194).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Pan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2023/0351669, previously cited, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee-Pan disclose the method according to claim 6.
Lee-Pan may not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving, by the first access network device, the first request sent by the first terminal device comprises:
receiving, by the first access network device, the first request sent by the first terminal device in a case that at least one of following is satisfied:
support of the first access network device for configuring the bearer-related information for the first terminal device; or
a first condition configured by the first access network device, wherein the first condition comprises at least one of: link quality between the first terminal device and the second terminal device being higher than a first quality threshold, or cooperative transmission of specific service data being performed between the first terminal device and the second terminal device.
However, in analogous art, Xu discloses wherein the receiving, by the first access network device, the first request sent by the first terminal device comprises:
receiving, by the first access network device, the first request sent by the first terminal device in a case that at least one of following is satisfied:
support of the first access network device for configuring the bearer-related information for the first terminal device; or
a first condition configured by the first access network device, wherein the first condition comprises at least one of: link quality between the first terminal device and the second terminal device being higher than a first quality threshold, or cooperative transmission of specific service data being performed between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Fig. 10 and ¶¶ 198 and 212 disclose an electronic apparatus as a base station including components required for performing the functions described throughout the disclosure as performed by an electronic apparatus, such as Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, and 8; Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 47-48, 56-57, 62-63, 86-88, 121-122, and 136 disclose the electronic apparatus/BS determining whether a first user equipment (UE1) satisfies a condition for performing a sidelink communication with a second UE (UE2), such as a current link quality between UE1 and UE2, and controlling UE1’s sidelink communication with UE2 such as by allocating, scheduling, or configuring resources to UE1 for UE1 and UE2 to use for sidelink communication in an unlicensed or licensed spectrum based on the determination).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Xu to modify Lee-Pan in order to have a base station control UEs' sidelink communication based on meeting a preset condition, such as satisfying an LBT threshold in a particular type of spectrum in order to control whether sidelink communication may occur in an unlicensed spectrum. One would have been motivated to do this, because using the unlicensed spectrum may help increase a system's capacity, while accounting for delay and service quality degradation when using the unlicensed spectrum (Xu ¶¶ 103 and 175).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0029384, previously cited, hereinafter Hong).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses the method according to claim 9.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein reconfigured bearer-related information is used to indicate at least one of:
that in a case that a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) bearer is changed, the first terminal device is to perform a first operation on the PDCP bearer, wherein the first operation comprises at least one of reestablishment or security update;
that in a case that a PDCP bearer is not changed, the first terminal device is to perform PDCP data recovery; or
that the first terminal device is to reset all state variables.
However, in analogous art, Hong discloses wherein reconfigured bearer-related information is used to indicate at least one of:
that in a case that a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) bearer is changed, the first terminal device is to perform a first operation on the PDCP bearer, wherein the first operation comprises at least one of reestablishment or security update (Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 106-107 discloses a UE receiving an RRC connection re-establishment message from a cell as reconfiguring a PDCP sub-layer and an RLC sub-layer for a particular SRB, wherein the PDCP sub-layer responsible for security is reconfigured using newly calculated security key values (i.e., security update));
that in a case that a PDCP bearer is not changed, the first terminal device is to perform PDCP data recovery; or
that the first terminal device is to reset all state variables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hong to modify Lee in order to update security of the PDCP layer of a SRB between two terminals corresponding to an established/configured RLC bearer upon RRC re-establishment as a form of reconfiguration. One would have been motivated to do this, because updating security of the PDCP sub-layer may help enable transmission and reception of data suitable for 5G requirements by applying parameters related to a service flow considered in a next generation communication system such as 5G as well as RSRP to thereby reselect a path. (Hong ¶ 19).
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
Prosecution Insights