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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument, regarding the written description rejection of claim 18, that an adaptation layer header being present in some configuration and absent in others is a concept well understood in the art is persuasive. The written description rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claims 1 and 37, the applicant argues:
Claims 1 and 37 are not indefinite because the term "the communications" in the third feature has a clear and understandable referent when the claim is read as a whole. The second feature recites "determining a radio link control (RLC) channel to relay communications between the remote UE and the base station." This feature introduces the concept of "communications between the remote UE and the base station" as the subject matter to be relayed on the RLC channel. The third feature recites "relaying the communications between the remote UE and the base station on the RLC channel." The use of the definite article "the" in the third feature clearly refers back to the same "communications between the remote UE and the base station" introduced in the second feature.
The Office Action's position appears to be that because the word "communications" in the second feature appears within a purpose clause (i.e., "to relay communications"), it does not actually define "communications" as an element that can be referenced later. However, claims must be read as a whole, and a person of ordinary skill would understand without ambiguity that "the communications" in the third feature refers to the same communications identified in the second feature as the subject of the relay operation. The scope of the claim is clear: the relay UE determines a channel to relay communications, and then relays those communications on that channel. This is not an instance where the antecedent and the subsequent reference are semantically different. See MPEP § 2173.05(e) (noting that a claim is indefinite only when its language is ambiguous, vague, or incoherent such that one of ordinary skill cannot understand the scope).
This argument is not persuasive because the third limitation is all of ambiguous, vague, and incoherent. The third limitation is ambiguous because it is unclear how many communications are relayed and from which devices (remote UE or base station). The third limitation is vague because it is unclear what the nature of those communications is, the source and destination of those communications, and what the timing of those communications are because communications are only previously referenced as an abstraction related to the purpose of the channel. The third limitation is not coherent because it refers to specific communications that are relayed between a remote UE and a base station without defining whether those communications are from the remote UE or the base station. This clarity rejection is important because the applicant is arguing the claims are patentable over the prior art, on page 13 of their response, because the claims “require a specific causal relationship”. The claims do not show how the “communications” referred to in the third limitation are part of a “specific causal relationship” as alleged and therefore are not clear.
The applicant’s argument seems to miss the point that the second limitation refers to an action of a “determining a radio link (RLC) channel”. The claimed determining of a channel is for the purpose “to relay communication” but reciting a purpose of a channel clearly does not define particular communications. The applicant needs to amend the claims to define actual communications to give the “communication” in the final limitation meaning.
The clarity rejection of claim 17 has been revised based on the amended language.
The applicant’s arguments regarding the clarity rejections of claim 18 are not persuasive. The applicant argues:
Regarding the first issue, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 37, "the communications between the remote UE and the base station" in claim 18 has a clear referent in parent claim 1. The phrase "communications between the remote UE and the base station" is introduced in claim 1's second feature and is the same concept referenced in claim 18.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons addressed in the claim 1. On page 9, the applicant argues that “omitting a header can simply mean not including a header” in their third point about the previously applied written description rejection. Based on the applicant’s own characterization of the claimed subject matter claim 18 covers not doing something in response to a condition. The claim is not doing something to an “adaptation layer header” for communications which are not specifically defined by the claim. Claim 18 is thus incoherent and rejected according to the guidance in section 2173.05(e) that the applicant has pointed to on page 10 of their response.
Next the applicant argues:
Regarding the second issue, claim 18 is a dependent claim that adds a new element, a "sidelink (SL) RLC channel" and specifies a condition ("in response to the RLC channel and a sidelink (SL) RLC channel using a default RLC configuration") under which the adaptation layer header is omitted. The sidelink RLC channel is properly introduced by claim 18 itself and therefore it does not need to be recited in claim 1. The "in response to" clause is self-contained within Claim 18 and it defines the trigger condition (both the Uu RLC channel and the SL RLC channel using default configurations) for the omission step. This does not require claim 1 to have separately recited a sidelink RLC channel. A dependent claim routinely introduces additional elements and conditions not found in the independent claim.
Claim 18 may introduce a sidelink (SL) RCL but it does not relate what the SL RLC and its use of a default RCL configuration has to do with anything claimed in claim 1 as is therefore not coherent. The applicant is encouraged to claim what the sidelink (SL) RLC channel has to do with the rest of the claim in order to further prosecution.
With respect to the argument regarding the prior art rejection of claims 1 and 37, it is not persuasive because seems to be misconstruing the rejection. In section 2.1.1 of the 8.7.4.1 document, the document explains actions the relay UE performs in order to establish or resume a connection. The first two sentences reference a request sent to the base station from the relay UE to establish/resume the connection. The next sentence states that the “the relay UE may initiate this procedure upon reception of a message (whether first RRC message or a trigger message) on PC5 from remote UE”. This message received by the UE reads on the breadth of the receiving step of claims 1 and 37.
Section 2.1.3 describes how the RLC channel is configured by the relay UE to connect the remote UE and the base station (gNB). Section 2.1.3 is clearly describing how the connection that is to be established in section 2.1.1 is configured and can therefore be considered to be performed “in response to the request message” as claimed. The whole point of the bearer mapping description in section 2.1.4.2 is to relay communications between the remote UE and the base station. As pointed out the clarity rejection, the applicant did not specifically define the communications referred to in the third limitation. There is nothing in the claims that the Examiner can point to as covering technology that is patentable over the descriptions cited in the 8.7.4.1 document that the Examiner can point to as showing patentable over the 8.7.4.1 document when considering the context of what the 8.7.4.1 document is describing. In other words, section 2.1.1 shows the claimed request and the rest of the document explains how an RLC channel is set up to relay communications between a remote UE and a base station.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant’s arguments are out of line with the scope of the claim. The applicant refers to “selecting” an RLC channel in their argument but all they claim is that that RLC channel, that was determined in claim 1, is determined somehow “based on the current state”. The applicant concedes that the 8.7.4.1 document determines the current state and the cited paragraph shows how the current state leads to the connection establishment and thus the establishment of the RLC channel.
Regarding claim 6, the relay UE stores the configuration and describes a Uu RLC channel for relaying signaling to the remote UE. This clearly happens when the relay UE is in a connected state as opposed to idle or inactive. There is nothing the Examiner could point to regarding claim 6 as covering technology that is patentable over the teachings of the reference when considering the context in which they are disclosed.
As to claim 9, the cited portion of the 8.7.4.1 document teaches a bearer mapping which is considered the “default” bearer mapping. The cited portion clearly shows a one-to-one bearer mapping with a sidelink RLC channel.
As to claims 10 and 11, again, the applicant seems to misunderstand the scope of the claims. The applicant is claiming a negative limitation; something the invention does not do. The reference does not teach multiplexing so it meets the requirement of the negative limitation which states the reference does not multiplex.
As to claim 17, the rejection has been revised in view of the applicant’s amendment.
As to claim 18, on page 9 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant states that claim 18 covers doing nothing. Therefore, the 8.7.4.1 document reads on this scope. Further the cited portion of the 8.7.4.1 document suggests omitting an adaptation layer in the broad and indefinite context claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the show purpose of Proposal 1-1 and the following paragraph is to describe how the relay gets out of the idle state, into the connected state in order to resume or establish a connection. The relay UE may then switch to a connected state but it starts in an idle/inactive state, as clearly described. Pan shows how the rest of the connection could be accomplished. The motivation to combine shows that although the 8.7.4.1 document does not get into detail about the connection between the relay and the base station, Pan shows the details of how such a connection would be made.
Regarding claim 4, Figure 22 of Pan shows what is claimed. The top line shows a dedicated channel between the base station and remote UE. Figure 22 shows a lower layer connection between the relay and the base station. There is no description of the multiplexing in paragraphs 512 and 529.
Regarding claim 5, paragraph 512 clearly suggests the second alternative of the claim as it describes the RLC channel as “associated” with the remote UE via RRC messages which are signaling.
As to claims 7 and 8, if the applicant wanted to claim a specified configuration versus a default configuration, then they should have done so. As pointed out in the action, the applicant did not define the terms “reconfigurable” and “nonreconfigurable” in a limiting manner based on the guidance given in section 2111.01 of the MPEP.
As to claim 12, the rationale is straightforward for the combination. The 8.7.4.1 document gets into the request for the connection between the relay and the base station but does not get into the details of the connection. Pan teaches such details in the same context.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is using a message “as a container for an indication”. This language is vague and it seems that any message is inherently a container for an indication. If the applicant had a specific technical meaning of a container in mind, it should have been claimed in a more specific manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 37 recite the limitation "the communications" in the third limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second limitation of each claim covers the explicit step “determining a radio link control channel” for the purpose “to relay communications” but it does not actually define any specific “communications” that can be relayed, as claimed in the third limitation. The use of the article “the” implies that specific “communications” have already been defined in the third limitation but even though the word “communications” is used in the second limitation these are not “communications” that can be relayed as in the third limitation. The applicant is using the same word, “communications”, to describe an abstraction in the second limitation and actual communications in the third limitation so the use of the article “the” in the third limitation is not appropriate.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The claims refer to “a same RLC configuration as was used for an uplink (UL) request message transmitted to the base station via the RLC channel”. By using the past tense, the applicant is referring to some action that happened prior to the claim and is therefore not part of the actual claim. If the applicant wants to claim a step of using a RLC configuration for the transmission of an uplink request message then they should explicitly do so. As it is it is unclear how the uplink request message and its RLC configuration is related to any action performed by claim 1 and thus is it not clear what the “same” RLC configuration is that is used to define the DL response message.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "omitting an adaptation layer header of the communications between the remote UE and the base station". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant does not claim any communications between the remote UE and the base station which have an adaptation layer and it is not clear how the adapter layer can be subsequently omitted if the communications are already relayed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: claim 1 does not reference using sidelink RLC channel so it is not possible to determine when claim 1 uses a sidelink RLC channel uses a default RLC channel. The applicant would have to claim a step of using a sidelink RLC channel in order for the claimed “in response to” condition to have meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9-11, 18, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the document titled “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1”, part of IDS (citation 4 on page 2) filed on 9/26/2023.
As to claim 1, “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” teaches a method of wireless communication for a relay user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, from a remote UE, a request message for establishing or resuming a connection between the remote UE and a base station (section 2.1.1 first paragraph); determining a radio link control (RLC) channel to relay communications between the remote UE and the base station in response to the request message (section 2.1.3, first paragraph); and relaying the communications between the remote UE and the base station on the RLC channel in response to determining the RLC channel (section 2.1.4.2 and subsequent Proposal 1-11).
As to claim 37, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claim 2, see paragraph after Proposal 1-1.
As to claim 6, “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” teaches obtaining RLC information stored by the relay UE and corresponding to a default Uu RLC channel for relaying signaling of the remote UE (sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.3.2), in response to the current state of the relay UE being the connected state (section 2.1.1), wherein the RLC channel is the default Uu RLC channel with a fixed logical channel identification (LCD) or a fixed configuration (section 2.1.3.2 shows a fixed configuration).
As to claim 9, see section 2.1.4.2.
As to claims 10 and 11, “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” does not describe any such multiplexing.
As to claim 18, see section 2.1.3.2, final sentence.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the document titled “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1”, part of IDS (citation 4 on page 2) filed on 9/26/2023 in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0174762 by Pan.
As to claim 3, “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” teaches transmitting, to the base station, an indication of the request message, in response to the current state of the relay UE being the idle state or the inactive state (first sentence in paragraph after Proposal 1-1); however “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” does not explicitly teach the step of receiving, from the base station, RLC configuration information indicating a dedicated Uu RLC channel for relaying signaling of the remote UE, in response to the indication of the request message, wherein the RLC channel is determined based on the dedicated Uu RLC channel.
Pan teaches a relay UE (Figure 29, UE2) which performs transmitting, to a base station (Figure 29, gNB2), an indication of the request message (paragraph 512, first sentence); and receiving, from the base station, RLC configuration information indicating a dedicated Uu RLC channel for relaying signaling of the remote UE, in response to the indication of the request message, wherein the RLC channel is determined based on the dedicated Uu RLC channel (paragraph 512).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile device communication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” regarding a relay which manages communications with the teachings of Pan regarding a base station transmitting to a relay configuration information indicating a UuRLC channel because although “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” does not get into detail about information provided by the base station to the relay, Pan shows how such information could be used to reestablish a connection in the exact same type of architecture as “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1”.
As to claim 4, see paragraphs 512 and 529 and Figure 22 of Pan.
As to claim 5, see paragraph 512 of Pan.
As to claim 12, “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” teaches transmitting, to the base station, an indication of the request message, in response to the current state of the relay UE being the connected state (first paragraph after Proposal 1-1); however “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” does not explicitly teach the step of receiving, from the base station, RLC configuration information indicating a dedicated Uu RLC channel for relaying signaling of the remote UE, in response to the indication of the request message, wherein the RLC channel is determined based on the dedicated Uu RLC channel.
Pan teaches a relay UE (Figure 29, UE2) which performs transmitting, to a base station (Figure 29, gNB2), an indication of the request message, in response to the current state of the relay UE being the connected state (paragraph 512, first sentence); and receiving, from the base station, RLC configuration information indicating a dedicated Uu RLC channel for relaying signaling of the remote UE, in response to the indication of the request message, wherein the RLC channel is determined based on the dedicated Uu RLC channel (paragraph 512).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile device communication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” regarding a relay which manages communications with the teachings of Pan regarding a base station transmitting to a relay configuration information indicating a UuRLC channel because although “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” does not get into detail about information provided by the base station to the relay, Pan shows how such information could be used to reestablish a connection in the exact same type of architecture as “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1”.
As to claim 13, see paragraph 511 of Pan.
As to claims 14 and 15, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 12, with the confirmation message interpreted the same as the LRC configuration information in claim 12.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 6.
As to claim 17, the 8.7.4.1 document teaches the subject matter of claim 1 however it does not explicitly teach the subject matter of claim 17.
Pan teaches receiving, from a baste station a DL response via an RLC channel using the same RLC config that was used to receive a UL request at the base station via the RLC channel (see paragraph 512).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile device communication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” regarding a relay which manages communications with the teachings of Pan regarding using a same RLC configuration on a uplink request and a downlink response because it would be logical to respond with the same channel configuration in which a request is received.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the document titled “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1”, part of IDS (citation 4 on page 2) filed on 9/26/2023 in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0124854 by Pan.
The Examiner notes that paragraph 70, 88, 95 and 96 of the disclosure do not provide details on what makes the default Uu RLC channel “non-reconfigurable” versus “reconfigurable” by a base station.
As to claims 7 and 8, “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” teaches the subject matter of claim 6, however it does not teach the default Uu RLC channel “non-reconfigurable” versus “reconfigurable” by a base station via RRC reconfiguration message.
Pan teaches that a default Uu RLC channel can be non-reconfigurable or reconfigurable by a base station via RRC reconfiguration message (paragraph 264).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile device communication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1” regarding a relay which manages communications with the teachings of Pan regarding allowing for a default Uu RLC channel to be “non-reconfigurable” versus “reconfigurable” because Pan shows how the default Uu RLC channel can be managed in the exact same type of architecture as “Summary Document of AI 8.7.4.1”.
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights