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 .
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response to restriction requirement filed on October 2, 2025. Claims 1-14 and 18 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on October 2, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 18 has been withdrawn from further consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on August 6, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on June 16, 2023 as modified by the preliminary amendment also filed on June 16, 2023. Claims 1-14 and 18 are now pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference numbers 210, 220, and 230 on figure 18 are not mentioned in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. If a response to the present Office Action fails to include proper drawing corrections, corrected drawings or arguments therefor, the response can be held NON-RESPONSIVE and/or the application could be ABANDONED since the objections/corrections to the drawings are no longer held in
abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3 of paragraph 66, the acronym of “RBs” needs to be spelled out;
On line 3 of paragraph 81, the acronym of “TTI” needs to be spelled out;
On line 5 of paragraph 83, replace “mat” with --may-- after “FR1”;
On line 2 of paragraph 108, delete “there is.”; and
On line 1 of paragraph 222, replace “steep” with --step--.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated
by Apple (Summary Report of [Post111-e][622][Relay] Relay selection and reselection), hereinafter Apple.
Consider claim 1, Apple a method performed by a first user equipment (UE) (i.e., the remote UE doing the relay selection/reselection in page 1 third paragraph of section 2. See also page 2 lines 1-11) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving a discovery message broadcast by a second UE, the discovery message comprising access control information for a cell in which the second UE is in a connected state (see page 20 section 2.2 first three paragraphs where the sidelink (SL) relay UE (i.e., second UE) conveys access restriction on the cell to the remote UE via SL discovery messages. See also the Huawei entry on the table on page 4 – discovery message can be broadcasted);
performing access barring check for the cell based on the access control information (see page 20 section 2.2 first three paragraphs where access barring information and access restriction on the cell conveyed in the broadcasted discovery message is considered for UE SL relay selection/reselection);
selecting a third UE for obtaining a network connection based on an access attempt to the cell being barred as a result of the access barring check (see the Interdigital entry on the table on page 25 – For e) if the cell is barred, the remote UE should not consider it as a possible relay (i.e., second UE is not considered as a relay hence another candidate SL UE (i.e., a third UE) will be selected instead, for example, by relying on any of the remaining criteria under Question 2-1)); and
performing an access attempt to acquire the network connection through the third UE (this step is inherently disclosed on pages 20+ in the Apple reference as the main purpose is to
select/reselect a candidate SL relay UE to connect to the network).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Apple further discloses wherein the remote UE (i.e., first UE) is in an idle or inactive state (see Annex A item 10 on page 43 – remote UE in IDLE/INACTIVE state).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Apple also discloses wherein the cell is different from a cell to which the third UE belongs (see the Spreadtrum entry on the table encompassing pages 23 and 24 - For d, it may not be the best choice to select a relay which is in coverage of the same cell. For instance, when a remote UE is moving away from the serving cell, a relay in the coverage of the target gNB would be a better choice than a relay in the coverage of the serving gNB).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Apple further disclose wherein the third UE belongs to the cell (see the Interdigital entry on the table on page 25 – For d) we see some advantage to prioritize selection of the relay with the same cell or RAN area (for L2 when the remote UE is in INACTIVE)).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Apple also discloses wherein an access attempt to the cell performed through the second UE is barred, and wherein the access attempt to the cell performed through the third UE is allowed (see page 20 section 2.2 first three paragraphs where access barring information and access restriction on the cell conveyed in the broadcasted discovery message is considered for UE SL relay selection/reselection. See also the Interdigital entry on the table on page 25 – For e) if the cell is barred, the remote UE should not consider it as a possible relay (i.e., second UE is not considered as a relay hence another candidate SL UE (i.e., a third UE) will be selected instead, for example, by relying on any of the remaining criteria under Question 2-1 as the main purpose is to select/reselect a candidate SL
relay UE to connect to the network)).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Apple further discloses based on the access control information, determining whether to establish a connection with the second UE; and determining not to establish a connection with the second UE based on an access attempt to a cell in which the second UE is in a connected state is barred as a result of the access barring check, wherein the selecting of the third UE comprises selecting the third UE after determining not to establish a connection with the second UE (see page 20 section 2.2 first three paragraphs where access barring information and access restriction on the cell conveyed in the broadcasted discovery message is considered for UE SL relay selection/reselection. See also the Interdigital entry on the table on page 25 – For e) if the cell is barred, the remote UE should not consider it as a possible relay (i.e., second UE is not considered as a relay hence another candidate SL UE (i.e., a third UE) will be selected instead, for example, by relying on any of the remaining criteria under Question 2-1 as the main purpose is to select/reselect a candidate SL relay UE to connect to the network)).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Apple also discloses establishing a connection with the third UE after selecting the third UE (this step is inherently disclosed on pages 20+ in the Apple reference as the main purpose is to select/reselect a candidate SL relay UE to connect to the network), wherein the first UE is not establishing a connection with any UE before establishing a connection with the third UE (See the CATT entry on the table on page 4 - a) works for the remote UE which is not connected with any relay UE via PCS RRC in relay (re)selection).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Apple further discloses receiving a discovery message from the third UE (see page 20 section 2.2 first three paragraphs where the sidelink (SL) relay UE sends a discovery message to the remote UE. See also the Huawei entry on the table on page 4 – discovery message can be broadcasted); and obtaining a signal strength of a sidelink between the first UE and the third UE by measuring a reference signal related to the discovery message (see page 3 Proposal 1 and Question 1-2 – Radio signal strength of SL discovery message), wherein the selecting of the third UE comprises selecting the third UE based on the signal strength of the sidelink and the signal strength of an access link between the third UE and a network (see page 3 Proposal 1 and Question 1-2 – Radio signal strength of SL discovery message is considered for relay selection/reselection and page 20 Question 2-1 – Uu link quality between candidate relay UE and gNB is also considered for relay selection/reselection).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 9 above, Apple also discloses wherein the discovery message comprises information indicating the signal strength of the access link (see page 20 first three paragraphs – Uu link quality between candidate relay UE and gNB can be included in SL discovery messages), and wherein the selecting of the third UE comprises selecting the third UE based on the signal strength of the sidelink exceeding a first threshold and the signal strength of the access link exceeding a second threshold (see the Apple entry on the table on page 21 – Unlike LTE Prose, NR Sidelink discovery message has no size constraint, it is possible to include a couple of useful information in the discovery message to help remote UE to differentiate relays. For a) and g), related thresholds have already been agreed to be used in the triggering of discovery messages).
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 1 above, Apple further discloses wherein the first UE and the second UE are autonomous vehicles that perform vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication with each other (see page 18 second paragraph – V2X-like (i.e., UEs are
autonomous vehicles) solution could be proper for U2U relay).
Consider claim 14, Apple discloses a first user equipment (UE) (the remote UE doing the relay selection/reselection in page 1 third paragraph of section 2. See also page 2 lines 1-11) in a wireless communication system, the first UE comprising:
a transceiver; a memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory (a transceiver, a memory, and a processor are all inherent components of a UE), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
control the transceiver to receive a discovery message broadcast by a second UE, the discovery message comprising access control information for a cell in which the second UE is in a connected state (see page 20 section 2.2 first three paragraphs where the sidelink (SL) relay UE (i.e., second UE) conveys access restriction on the cell to the remote UE via SL discovery messages. See also the Huawei entry on the table on page 4 – discovery message can be broadcasted);
perform access barring check for the cell based on the access control information (see page 20 section 2.2 first three paragraphs where access barring information and access restriction on the cell conveyed in the broadcasted discovery message is considered for UE SL relay selection/reselection);
select a third UE for obtaining a network connection based on an access attempt to the cell being barred as a result of the access barring check (see the Interdigital entry on the table on page 25 – For e) if the cell is barred, the remote UE should not consider it as a possible relay (i.e., second UE is not considered as a relay hence another candidate SL UE (i.e., a third UE) will be selected instead, for example, by relying on any of the remaining criteria under Question 2-1)); and
perform an access attempt to acquire the network connection through the third UE (this
step is inherently disclosed on pages 20+ in the Apple reference as the main purpose is to
select/reselect a candidate SL relay UE to connect to the network).
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apple (Summary Report of [Post111-e][622][Relay] Relay selection and reselection), hereinafter Apple, in view of Jung et al. (US 2017/0086114 A1).
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 9 above, Apple fails to disclose wherein the discovery message comprises information indicating an offset value proportional to the signal strength of the access link, and wherein the selecting of the third UE comprises selecting the third UE based on a value obtained by adding the offset value to the signal strength for the sidelink.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung et al. disclose the use, by a remote UE, of an offset value, which could be based on Uu link quality (i.e., access link) and added to it, communicated through discovery messages to rank candidate relay UEs for a relay selection procedure (see Table 1 on paragraph 0113 and paragraphs 0309, 0310, and 0324).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an offset value as disclosed by Jung et al. in the reselection procedure disclosed by Apple in order to allow the remote UE to have a bias when selecting from among candidate relay UEs (see, for example, paragraphs 0309 and 0310 of Jung et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 12 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Lee et al. (U.S. Patent # 9,867,119 B2) disclose a method and apparatus for performing D2D specific access control in a wireless communication system.
Hong (KR 10-2019-0033846) discloses methods for controlling access of UE and apparatuses thereof.
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0045626 A1) disclose a method by which a remote terminal selects a relay terminal in a situation in which access control is applied because of network congestion, and remote terminal for performing method.
Babaei (U.S. Patent # 11,330,505 B2) discloses access control for wireless devices with reduced capabilities.
Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0397100 A1) disclose a method and apparatus for remote UE mobility management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:15 am to 4:15 pm EST.
SPE 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.
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.
Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez
R.P.G./rpg
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
March 7, 2026