DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to new reference, Kang, that is relied on in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0247513 (hereinafter Paladugu), in view of Kang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0017979 (hereinafter Kang), further in view of Xu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0357284 (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 1, Paladugu discloses a method implemented by a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (disclosed is a method implemented by a UE, according to [0061]-[0062], Fig. 5B), the method comprising:
receiving configuration information through a relay WTRU connected to the WTRU, wherein the configuration information originates from a base station, wherein the configuration information comprises two or more thresholds for measurement reporting on one or more signals, wherein the two or more thresholds include a first threshold which is associated with reference signal received power (RSRP) measurements and a second threshold which is associated with sidelink discovery RSRP measurements, wherein the one or more signals are one or more sidelink transmissions (the remote UE communicates with a source base station via a relay UE, according to [0052], Fig. 4, whereby said remote UE receives conditional handover configuration information, in the form of trigger criteria, from said source base station, according to [0062], whereby said conditional handover configuration information comprises a channel condition threshold [“first threshold”] for an associated RSRP measurement between the UE and a base station, and a sidelink connection threshold [“second threshold”] for another associated RSRP measurement between the UE and a relay UE (whereby UEs communicate via sidelink discovery channels, according to [0033]), according to [0067]).
Paladugu does not expressly disclose that the first threshold is associated with sidelink RSRP measurements, nor sending a report to the base station, wherein the report includes a measurement and information identifying a type of the measurement, wherein the information identifying the type of the measurement indicates whether the measurement was based on at least one data transmission or at least one discovery signal.
Kang discloses sending a report to the base station, wherein the report includes a measurement and information identifying a type of the measurement, wherein the information identifying the type of the measurement indicates whether the measurement was based on at least one data transmission or at least one discovery signal (a mobile station transmits a measurement report that includes information indicating quality of a received discovery measurement request [“the report includes a measurement and information identifying a type of the measurement, wherein the information identifying the type of the measurement indicates … the measurement was based on … at least one discovery signal”], according to [0082], [0089], [0101], [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paladugu with Kang by sending a report to the base station, wherein the report includes a measurement and information identifying a type of the measurement, wherein the information identifying the type of the measurement indicates whether the measurement was based on at least one data transmission or at least one discovery signal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the efficient allocation of resources to mobile stations (Kang: [0005]).
Neither Paladugu nor Kang expressly discloses that the first threshold is associated with sidelink RSRP measurements
Xu discloses that the first threshold is associated with sidelink RSRP measurements (disclosed are three RSRP thresholds for sidelink transmissions between a first user equipment and a second user equipment, according to [0018]-[0019], [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paladugu as modified by Kang with Xu such that the first threshold is associated with sidelink RSRP measurements
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate service continuity for communications via relay UEs (Xu: [0003]-[0005]).
Claim 8 recites the wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU), comprising a processor and a transceiver (Paladugu discloses a remote UE that comprises a processor and a transceiver, according to [0080], Fig. 7 [elements 702 and 712]), that performs the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Paladugu, Kang, and Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paladugu discloses that the one or more thresholds includes one or more RSRP/RSRQ/RSNI thresholds (the channel condition threshold and the sidelink connection threshold are RSRP thresholds, according to [0067]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Paladugu, Kang, and Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paladugu discloses that the one or more signals includes a first link to the relay WTRU, and one or more candidate links, wherein one or more candidate links comprises a candidate sidelink to a second WTRU (as illustrated in Fig. 1, a given UE, 102 (102’), communicates with a base station 102 via a relay UE 104, and also communicates with another UE 104 (illustrated as a laptop computer)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Paladugu, Kang, and Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paladugu discloses that the one or more signals originates from one or more candidate links with a second WTRU, and wherein the measuring is performed on a condition that a measurement of a first link meets a SL RSRP/RSRQ/RSNI threshold (the sidelink connection threshold is an RSRP threshold, according to [0067]).
Claims 9-11 do not differ substantively from claims 2-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as 2-4, respectively.
7. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu in view of Kang in view of Xu as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Ly et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0078685 (hereinafter Ly).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Paladugu, Kang, and Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Paladugu, Kang, nor Xu expressly discloses that the report is sent through the WTRU relay.
Ly discloses that the report is sent through the WTRU relay (the measurement report that is generated by the UE is sent to a base station via the source relay, according to [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paladugu as modified by Kang as modified by Xu with Ly such that the report is sent through the WTRU relay.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve wireless network latency and reliability (Ly: [0004]).
Claim 13 does not differ substantively from claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
8. Claims 5, 7, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu in view of Kang in view of Xu as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0243431 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Paladugu, Kang, and Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Paladugu, Kang, nor Xu expressly discloses that the configuration information includes conditions for sending the report including: based on a periodic interval, based on the type of measurement, or based on a timing of a specific event.
Chen discloses that the configuration information includes conditions for sending the report including: based on a periodic interval, based on the type of measurement, or based on a timing of a specific event (a D2D UE receives report transmitting conditions in configuration information, whereby said conditions specify certain types of measurements as the basis for determining that a report should be transmitted, according to [0072], [0087]-[0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paladugu as modified by Kang as modified by Xu with Chen such that the configuration information includes conditions for sending the report including: based on a periodic interval, based on the type of measurement, or based on a timing of a specific event.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate efficient resource allocation (Chen: [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Paladugu, Kang, and Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Paladugu, Kang, and Xu expressly discloses that the configuration information includes a plurality of information elements, wherein the information elements indicated what to report and when to send the report.
Chen discloses that the configuration information includes a plurality of information elements, wherein the information elements indicated what to report and when to send the report (a base station transmits configuration information that specifies the conditions under which a status report of RTS/CTS collision should be sent, according to [0066], [0072], [0087]-[0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paladugu as modified by Kang as modified by Xu with Chen such that the configuration information includes a plurality of information elements, wherein the information elements indicated what to report and when to send the report.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate efficient resource allocation (Chen: [0004]-[0005]).
Claims 12 and 14 do not differ substantively from claims 5 and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claims 5 and 7, respectively.
9. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu in view of Kang in view of Xu as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Ponce De Leon et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0156210 (hereinafter Ponce De Leon).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Paladugu, Kang, and Xu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Paladugu, Kang, nor Xu expressly discloses measuring the one or more signals, wherein the report is sent to the base station upon determining at least one of the one or more signals meets the one or more thresholds, wherein the measurement of the report results from the measuring of the one or more signals.
Ponce De Leon discloses measuring the one or more signals, wherein the report is sent to the base station upon determining at least one of the one or more signals meets the one or more thresholds, wherein the measurement of the report results from the measuring of the one or more signals (a mobile station sends a measurement report as soon as a measured signal quality meets a signal quality threshold, according to [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paladugu as modified by Kang as modified by Xu with Ponce De Leon by measuring the one or more signals, wherein the report is sent to the base station upon determining at least one of the one or more signals meets the one or more thresholds, wherein the measurement of the report results from the measuring of the one or more signals.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate a fast handoff of a mobile station (Ponce De Leon: [0012]).
Claim 16 does not differ substantively from claim 15, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 15.
Conclusion
10. 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 MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights