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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 and 37 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-28 and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant does not describe an “adaptation layer header” and how such a head is “omitted” from communications. Paragraphs 72-76, 123, 157, and 175 provide literal support for this limitation but they do not provide a description of what the “adaptation layer” comprises, what the format of an “adaptation layer header” is, how such a header would be incorporated into communications between the remote UE and the base station, and how a function of “omitting an adaptation layer header” would be performed by the relay UE, as claimed. Section 2163.03(V) of the MPEP states that an original claim may be rejected under 35 USC section 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement when the applicant claims a function without disclosing how the function is performed. In this case, the applicant has not disclosed how the function of omitting an adaptation layer header is performed.
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 structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: claim 17 receives a DL response message with a “same RLC configuration as a UL request corresponding to the DL response message” but the claims do not define any RLC configuration or UL request message so it is not clear what such a “same RLC configuration” would be and what the relationship is between the RLC configurations of the UL request and DL response and what that even has to do with the action of “receiving, from the base station, a downlink (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, 17, 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 17, see section 2.1.3.2, the network implementation may decide whether to use the “Remote-UE specific configuration for adaptation over Uu of Remote UE’s first message”.
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 12-16 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 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.
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
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