DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/20/26 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 49-51 uses the phrase “means for”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ying fails to disclose or suggest “receiving an indication of a trigger for the remote UE to perform a handover procedure or a reselection procedure.”
In contrast to applicant’s assertions, Ying in Fig. 6B, step s214 teaches the remote UE receives handover command. A handover command is known for triggering a remote UE to perform a handover procedure.
Ying’s Fig. 6 and 7 teaches the steps in Fig. 4-6 of the instant application. The independent claims of the instant application do not include any further details other than the remote UE receives a trigger for handover. Since Ying teaches a remote UE receives handover command and the remote UE adapts itself to operate on the target network Ying reads on the teachings in the claimed independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-16, 31-33, 35-37, 40-42, 44-46 and 49-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ying (US 2020/0128447 A1).
Consider claim 10, Ying teaches a method for wirelss communication at a remote user equipment (UE) (abstract and Fig. 7), comprising:
communicate with a first base station via a relay UE, wherein the relay UE is configured to relay wireless communications between the remote UE and the first base station via at least a sidelink communication link between the relay UE and the remote UE (Fig. 4, step S101 and paragraph 3 and 107, a remote UE communicates to a source eNB via a relay UE and the connection between the relay UE and the remote UE is a device to device link with is the claimed sidelink communication link);
receiving an indication of a trigger for the remote UE to perform a handover procedure or a reselection procedure (Fig. 6B, step s214 and 7B and step S309 and paragraph 165-168, 180 and 190-197, the remote UE receives a handover command); and
perform at least one of the handover procedure or the reselection procedure based at least in part on receiving the indication of the trigger (Fig. 6B, step s214 and 7B and step S309 and paragraph 165-168 and 198, the remote UE and the relay UE is handover to the target eNB).
Consider claims 31, 40 and 49, claims 31, 40 and 49 having similar limitations as claim 10, therefore, claims 31, 40 and 49 are rejected for the same reasons claim 10 is rejected.
Consider claims 11, 32, 41 and 50, Ying also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the remote UE to: perform the second handover procedure or the reselection procedure with the relay UE based at least in part on the first handover procedure and identifying an interruption in data transfer between the relay UE and the remote UE (paragraph 181, handover is decided according to low quality or low receive level); and
communicate with the relay UE via the sidelink communication link based at least in part on performing the second handover procedure or the reselection procedure (Fig. 7B, step S310 and paragraph 198).
Consider claims 12, 33, 42 and 51, Ying also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the remote UE to: receive, from the relay UE, a sidelink release message indicating for the remote UE to release a wireless connection between the relay UE and the remote UE; and release the wireless connection between the relay UE and the remote UE based at least in part on receiving the sidelink release message, wherein performing the second handover procedure or the reselection procedure is based at least in part on releasing the wireless connection (paragraph 140-141, the relay UE and the remote UE are handover to the target eNB separately then associated back together after both of the relay and remote UEs are finished with the handover procedure. Therefore, the remote UE must release the connection with the relay UE when handover to the target eNB).
Consider claims 14, 35 and 44, Ying also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the remote UE to: communicate with the relay UE, the first base station, the second base station, an additional UE, an additional base station, or any combination thereof, based at least in part on performing the second handover procedure, the reselection procedure, or both (Fig. 7B, step S310 and paragraph 140-141 and paragraph 198, the remote UE communicate to the relay UE or the target eNB).
Consider claims 15, 36 and 45, Ying also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the remote UE to: receive, from the relay UE, a radio resource control message comprising an indication of the first handover procedure, an identifier associated with the second base station, or both, wherein the indication to perform the second handover procedure, the reselection procedure, or both, is based at least in part on the indication of the first handover procedure, the identifier associated with the second base station, or both (paragraph 140-141 and handover information include the identification of the target eNB).
Consider claims 16, 37 and 46, Ying also teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the remote UE to: receive, from the relay UE based at least in part on identifying an interruption of data transfer between the relay UE and the remote UE, a radio resource control message comprising an indication of a completion of the first handover procedure, an indication of an identifier associated with the second base station, or both; transmit, to the relay UE, a request to reestablish wireless communications between the relay UE and the remote UE based at least in part on the radio resource control message; and communicate with the relay UE via the sidelink communication link based at least in part on receiving the request (paragraph 140-141, 181 and 198, handover is determined when a low quality or a low receive level occurs. The remote and relay UE connection is re-established at the target eNB).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 17-18, 34, 38-39, 43 and 47-48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JUSTIN YE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5258. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-8:00.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JUSTIN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644 3/11/26