DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 6 January 2026, which have been entered after Final Rejection on 7 November 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 1-7, 9, and 15-26 were pending in the Final Rejection.
Claims 2-7 and 9 have been canceled and claims 27-37 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 15-37 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15-37 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.
For example, at pages 12-13 of Applicant Remarks, applicant cites Cai et al. (US 2023/0269799) at paragraphs 189-192 and argues that this portion does not disclose a network side device configuring a sidelink SLRB through RRC, and, at pages 13-14, cites Cai at paragraphs 318-320 and argues that this portion does not disclose a remote terminal determining SLRB, SDAP, and PDCP configurations based on a configuration from a network side device and determining a RLC bearer configuration for sidelink transmission. However, as further detailed in the prior art rejection below, Cai is cited at Figs. 1, 2, 11, 18 and ¶¶ 157-158, 190, 193-196, 212, 306-325, wherein Fig. 11 and ¶¶ 195-196 are relied upon for disclosing a remote UE receiving the claimed first configuration information from the claimed relay terminal in a PC5 RRC procedure, and Figs. 1, 2, 11, 18 and ¶¶ 157, 195 and 307-310 are relied upon for disclosing a remote UE receiving the claimed second configuration information from the claimed network side device, and determining SLRB, SDAP, and PDCP configurations from the second configuration information. None of these portions were cited by applicant and challenged for disclosing the subject matter as mapped in the rejection provided below.
Examiner also notes that independent claims 1, 20, and 32 still include alternative limitations that the original disclosure does not appear to support as being practiced simultaneously (i.e., the alternative limitations are exclusive of each other): receiving either first configuration information from a relay terminal or second configuration information from a network side device. Limitations contingent on practicing one alternative limitation need not be disclosed in the same embodiment disclosing practice of another alternative limitation to show that the claimed invention is disclosed in or obvious in view of prior art. MPEP 2111.04(II). Thus, whether a reference discloses determining SLRB, SDAP, and PDCP configurations from second configuration information is irrelevant where prior art is cited as disclosing reception of first configuration information from a relay terminal in a PC5 RRC procedure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 8 — "layer2" should read as "layer_2";
Regarding Claim 20, line 10 — "layer2" should read as "layer_2"; and
Regarding Claim 32, line 9 — "layer2" should read as "layer_2".
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 20, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cai et al. (US 2023/0269799, previously made of record, qualifying as prior art as supported by CN App. No. 202010724475.0, see also the Translation of Foreign Priority Document, accessible in the IFW of Cai's US Non-Prov. App. No. 18/006,444, hereinafter Cai).
Regarding Claim 1, Cai discloses a method for configuring a sidelink relay architecture, applied to a remote terminal, wherein the method comprises:
determining a sidelink configuration for a layer 2 (L2) sidelink relay architecture (¶ 158 discloses layer 2 as an intermediate layer including a MAC layer, RLC layer, and PDCP layer; Fig. 11 and ¶ 212 disclose remUE using an SRB corresponding to a PDCP bearer to have control signaling relayed to the network device; and Fig. 18 and ¶¶ 306-325 disclose establishing a SL RLC bearer for relaying — thus, the relaying is in an L2 architecture) based on at least one of first configuration information from a relay terminal and second configuration information from a network-side device (Fig. 11, ¶¶ 190, and 193-194 disclose a first terminal (remUE) receiving a configuration from second terminal (relUE), ¶¶ 195-196 disclose the configuration as received from a network device via the remUE; Fig. 18 and ¶ 307 disclose remUE receiving RB configuration from a network device via relUE);
wherein the determining a sidelink configuration for the sidelink relay architecture comprises:
determining the sidelink configuration for the sidelink relay architecture based on the second configuration information from the network-side device received in a radio resource control (RRC) procedure (Fig. 11, ¶ 195 disclose configuration information from the network device as included in an RRC message, wherein the first configuration information is relayed to the remUE via the relUE, either with or without parsing the RRC message while relaying; Fig. 18 and ¶ 307 disclose the network device sending RB configuration information in an RRC message) or determining the sidelink configuration for the sidelink relay architecture based on the first configuration information from the relay terminal received in a PC5 RRC procedure (Fig. 11 and ¶ 195 disclose that where first configuration information parsed and then sent to the remUE by the relUE in a RRC message as disclosed, which is known to be a PC5-RRC message; and ¶ 196 discloses where relUE receives third configuration information from the network device and sends first configuration information based on the third configuration information to the remUE via RRC reconfiguration signaling, wherein RRC signaling between UEs is known to be PC5-RRC signaling);
wherein the remote terminal determines, for sidelink transmission based on the second configuration information, a sidelink radio bearer (SLRB) configuration, a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) configuration, and a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) configuration (Fig. 18 and ¶¶ 308-310 disclose the RB configuration information as including Uu SRB information, PDCP configuration information, Uu SRB RB index, or ID, and ID or index of SL RLC bearer (i.e., SLRB) corresponding to the Uu SRB RB; Figs. 1, 2 and ¶ 157 disclose that for terminals to communication with each other, the user plane and control plane must be configured, including the layers for SDAP, PDCP, RLC, AND RRC); and
the remote terminal determines, based on the second configuration information or the first configuration information, a radio link control (RLC) bearer configuration for sidelink transmission (Fig. 11 and ¶ 190 discloses the remUE configuring a SL RLC bearer based on first configuration information; and ¶ 194-196 disclose the remUE receiving the first configuration information from the relUE, possibly as determined by the relUE).
Regarding Claims 20 and 32, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 20 and 32 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
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.
Claims 15, 27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claims 1, 20, and 32 above, and further in view of Belleschi et al. (US 2020/0229194, previously cited, hereinafter Belleschi).
Regarding Claim 15, Cai discloses the method according to claim 1.
Cai may not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises:
performing multi-carrier sidelink transmission with the relay terminal.
However, in analogous art, Belleschi discloses:
performing multi-carrier sidelink transmission with the relay terminal (Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 76-77, 89, 153, and 162 disclose a UE using multiple carriers to transmit data to another UE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Belleschi to modify Cai in order to transmit sidelink data on multiple carriers depending on the amount of data that needs to be transmitted within a period of time. One would have been motivated to do this, because enabling a UE to transmit on multiple sidelink carriers by taking into account sidelink carrier measurements and QoS ensures fair usage of the available spectrum and limited UE battery consumption. (Belleschi ¶ 48).
Regarding Claims 27 and 33, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 27 and 33 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 15, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 16, 28, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claims 1, 20, and 32 above, and further in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 2021/0314112, previously cited, hereinafter Balasubramanian).
Regarding Claim 16, Cai disclose the method according to claim 1.
Cai may not explicitly disclose wherein carrier aggregation (CA) or dual connectivity (DC) is configured for a Uu interface between the relay terminal and the network-side device.
However, in analogous art, Balasubramanian discloses wherein carrier aggregation (CA) or dual connectivity (DC) is configured for a Uu interface between the relay terminal and the network-side device (Fig. 14 ¶¶ 13, 102, 257-258 disclose carrier aggregation on the Uu interface in an analogous relay scenario).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Balasubramanian to modify Cai in order to for a bearer between a remote UE and base station via a relay UE to use carrier aggregation on the Uu link between the relay UE and the base station. One would have been motivated to do this, because having such a feature in a relay system may allow for PC5 functionality co-existing in the same resource pools as other wireless communication functionality without causing degradation to PC5 operation (Balasubramanian ¶ 101).
Regarding Claims 28 and 34, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 28 and 34 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 16, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 17, 29, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (WO 2020/222595, previously cited, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 17, Cai disclose the method according to claim 1.
Cai may not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises:
performing carrier aggregation (CA) duplication transmission for a target service with the relay terminal, wherein the CA duplication transmission for the target service is:
directly configured for the remote terminal;
configured by the network-side device for a sidelink radio bearer (SLRB) corresponding to the target service in a case that the remote terminal reports quality of service (QoS) of the target service;
enabling a CA duplication transmission function in a QoS profile used for the target service; or
enabling a CA duplication transmission function in a QoS feature profile of the target service.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the method further comprises:
performing carrier aggregation (CA) duplication transmission for a target service with the relay terminal (Fig. 10 and ¶¶ 158-167 disclose CA duplication being configured and activated), wherein the CA duplication transmission for the target service is:
directly configured for the remote terminal (¶ 162 discloses CA duplication being configured as indicated from an SCG RLC);
configured by the network-side device for a sidelink radio bearer (SLRB) corresponding to the target service in a case that the remote terminal reports quality of service (QoS) of the target service;
enabling a CA duplication transmission function in a QoS profile used for the target service; or
enabling a CA duplication transmission function in a QoS feature profile of the target service.
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 Cai in order to have CA duplication directly configured for a target service with the relay UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because such features allow a UE to configure a direct link even when the UE has no data to be transmitted to another UE (Lee ¶ 10).
Regarding Claims 29 and 35, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 29 and 35 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 17, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 18, 30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek et al. (US 2021/0297899, previously cited, hereinafter Baek).
Regarding Claim 18, Cai disclose the method according to claim 1.
Cai may not explicitly disclose wherein multiple RLC bearers used by the remote terminal to transmit duplicate data are configured to different component carrier (CC) subsets, respectively.
However, in analogous art, Baek discloses wherein multiple RLC bearers used by the remote terminal to transmit duplicate data are configured to different component carrier (CC) subsets, respectively (Figs. 15, 20 and 22-23 and ¶¶ 161, 183, 189, and 191-192 disclose different RLCs as associated with different cells (i.e., different CC subsets)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Baek to modify Cai in order to utilize RLC bearers associated with different CC subsets for sidelink relay communication. One would have been motivated to do this, because when a specific one of RLC entities set to enable a UE to participate in packet duplication is deactivated, a cell that is usable by the corresponding logical channel may no longer send data; thus, not using some cells being in an activated state may cause consumption of radio sources, and it may be efficient to cause other cells of the same radio bearer to use the cells. (Baek ¶ 188).
Regarding Claims 30 and 36, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 30 and 36 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 18, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wager et al. (US 2015/0092942, previously cited, hereinafter Wager).
Regarding Claim 19, Cai disclose the method according to claim 1.
Cai may not explicitly disclose wherein in a case that dual connectivity is configured for a Uu interface between the relay terminal and the network-side device:
the remote terminal uses a set of security parameters, and multiple data radio bearer (DRBs) of the remote terminal correspond to one network device; or
multiple DRBs of the remote terminal use multiple sets of security parameters.
However, in analogous art, Wager discloses wherein in a case that dual connectivity is configured for a Uu interface between the relay terminal and the network-side device (¶ 60 discloses a base station (eNB) providing services to for relay nodes and there being a need for an integrity key to protect DRBs that carry the relay-node control plane traffic; and Fig. 4 and ¶ 65 disclose deploying such a system in a dual-connectivity scenario):
the remote terminal uses a set of security parameters, and multiple data radio bearer (DRBs) of the remote terminal correspond to one network device; or
multiple DRBs of the remote terminal use multiple sets of security parameters (Fig. 9 and ¶ 94 discloses multiple assisting security keys as used for each of a plurality of DRBs — since a key is a type of security parameter and each key could be understood as its own set, this disclosure of “multiple assisting security keys” appears to be within the scope of the claimed multiple sets of security parameters).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wager to modify Cai in order to have, in a dual connectivity scenario, multiple DRBs use multiple sets of keys. One would have been motivated to do this, because regardless of which key establishment approach is used, existing handover procedures are generally unaffected when handing over the mobile terminal with dual connectivity to another base station, regardless of the type of the target base station, and the anchor eNB can tear down the DRBs in the assisting eNB and perform the handover to the target base station according to existing specifications. (Wager ¶ 72).
Regarding Claims 31 and 37, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 31 and 37 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 19, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468