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 Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 12/24/2025. The amendments of Applicant are entered and have been considered by Examiner. Claims 10, 12 have been amended. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claims 10, 12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 4 of applicants remarks:
In rejecting “in a case where (i) relay selection occurs while a timer T311 and a timer T390 are running and (ii) a suitable relay UE is selected, stop timers T390 for all access categories, and perform barring alleviation,” as was previously recited in independent claim 10, the Office Action concedes that 3GPP “does not explicitly teach stopping timers T390 when a relay selection occurs while timer T311 and T390 are running and a suitable relay UE is selected.” See page 4 of the Office Action (emphasis in original). In an attempt to cure the deficiencies of 3GPP, the Office Action relies on Back, as follows:
However, it is well known in the art that a relay UE is associated with a particular cell. For example, Back discloses in [0223]-[0225], The IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE within the connection range may determine whether the remote UE is access-barred through broadcasted SIB information and/or a discovery message. When the remote UE is unable to access due to access barring, the remote UE searches for another cell and establishes a connection with the other cell, or searches for a relay UE belonging to another cell and can establish a connection with the corresponding relay UE for a sidelink relay operation. [0167]-[0179], further discloses access barring check procedure for an access attempt associated with a certain access category (also discussed in 3GPP). Examiner notes in this case, selection of a relay is analogous to selection of a cell. See pages 4 and 5 of the Office Action (emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assertion. In particular, a relay UE selection or reselection may or may not result in a cell change. For example, the UE could select or reselect a relay UE connected to the same cell. Thus, relay UE selection/reselection is not equivalent to cell selection/reselection.
Moreover, Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily apply the "[a]ctions following cell selection while T311 is running," as asserted in the Office Action based on 3GPP, after a relay selection. See page 4 of the Office Action.
As such, neither 3GPP nor Back teaches, discloses, or suggests "in a case where (i) relay selection occurs while a timer T311 and a timer T390 are running and (ii) a suitable relay UE is selected, stop timers T390 for all access categories, and perform barring alleviation."
Examiner agrees with applicant that selection of a relay is not analogous to selection of a cell. As such, examiner withdraws that statement.
However, examiner maintains that the remainder of the rejection continues to teach on the claimed invention and as such, examiner respectfully disagrees to the arguments that the prior art does not teach the claimed limitation above.
As shown in the Back reference in the above recitation, when an IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE is unable to access due to access barring, the remote UE searches for another cell (i.e. cell reselection) and establish a connection with the other cell, or searches for a relay UE (i.e. relay selection/reselection) belonging to another cell and can establish a connection with the corresponding relay UE for a sidelink relay operation.
Examiner refers to [0077]-[0080] of the instant disclosure:
[0077] Optionally, in step 107, during the running of T1 or in case T1 is running, in case a first condition is met, the sidelink remote UE stops T1 and performs barring alleviation.
[0078] The first condition includes one or more of the following:
[0079] 1) in case sidelink relay UE selection or reselection occurs (optionally, in case suitable/candidate sidelink relay UE is selected or reselected); and
[0080] 2) in case a second cell identifier of the selected or reselected sidelink relay UE is different from the first cell identifier (or different from the current cell identifier).
Examiner notes that “T1” in the recitation above refers to claimed “T390”. “First cell identifier” in [0080] refers to the current cell identifier of the sidelink remote UE as seen in [0073] of the instant disclosure.
As shown in [0080] above, the claim limitation “a cell of selected or reselected relay UE changes” is indicative of a current cell identifier or a first cell identifier changing to a different cell identifier.
As shown in Back in the recitation above, “searching for a relay UE” teaches on the claim condition requiring a relay selection or reselection occurring, and “searching for a relay UE of another cell” teaches on the claim condition requiring both a relay selection/reselection occurring AND a cell of the selected or reselected relay UE changes. As such examiner maintains that the prior art teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues on pages 5-6 of applicants remarks:
However, as noted above, a cell selection (as described in 3GPP) is not equivalent to a relay UE selection (which 3GPP concededly does not teach), nor does the cell selection in 3GPP correspond to "relay selection or reselection occurs and a cell of selected or reselected relay lE changes," as claimed.
Back does not remedy the deficiencies of 3GPP. As discussed above, the cited portions of Back also rely on a cell selection.
Accordingly, 3GPP and Back do not teach, disclose, or suggest "in a case where (i) the UE is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle state (RRC_IDLE) or an RRC inactive state(RR INACTIVE) and (ii) relay selection or reselection occurs and a cell of selected or reselected relay UE changes while a timer T390 is running, stop timers T390 for all access categories and perform barring alleviation," as recited in amended independent claim 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the previous office action. while 3GPP may not teach relay reselection, 3GPP teaches determining a condition of cell reselection occurring while a timer T390 is running, and stopping timers T390 for all access categories and performing barring alleviation. In other words, 3GPP is silent on including an additional condition of a relay selection occurring prior to stopping timers T390 for all access categories and performing barring alleviation. Examiner introduces Back to teach the deficiencies of 3GPP, in which procedures for barring alleviation occur when an idle/inactive remote UE determines that the remote UE is access barred, where the remote UE searches for another cell and establishes a connection with the other cell, or searches for a relay UE belonging to another cell and can establish a connection with the corresponding relay UE for a sidelink relay operation. 3GPP further discloses Section 5.3.14.4, “T302, T390 expiry or stop (Barring alleviation)”, in which barring is alleviated by the expiration or stopping of T390.
As such, the combination of both 3GPP in view of Back would teach on the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Radio Resource Control (RRC) Protocol Specification” – 3GPP TS 38.331 V16.4.1 (hereinafter “3GPP”) in view of US 2024/0056951 A1 (foreign priority date of Apr. 15, 2021) to Back et al. (hereinafter “Back”)
Regarding Claim 10 and 12, 3GPP teaches a User equipment (UE) and method, comprising (Page 98, Section 5.3.7.3, discloses UE)
a processor configured to: (Examiner notes that user equipment’s are well known to include processors)
start a timer T390 for an access category in a case where an access attempt associated with the access category is barred; (Section 5.3.14.1, discloses perform access barring check for an access attempt associated with a given Access Category and one or more Access Identities upon request from upper layers according to TS 24.501 [23] or the RRC layer. Section. 5.3.14.2, discloses if timer T390 is running for the Access category, consider the access attempt as barred (i.e. timer T390 running is indicative of timer T390 already started) and
in a case where (i) relay selection occurs while a timer T311 and a timer T390 are running and (ii) a suitable relay UE is selected, stop timers T390 for all access categories and perform barring alleviation. (Section 5.3.7.3, discloses Actions following cell selection while T311 is running, Upon selecting a suitable NR cell, the UE shall: (i.e. relay selection occurs while timer T311 is running). If T390 is running (i.e. T390 is running upon selecting a suitable NR cell), stop timer T390 for all access categories and perform the actions specified in 5.3.14.4. Section 5.3.14.4, discloses T302, T390 expiry or stop (Barring alleviation)).
in a case where (i) the UE is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle state (RRC IDLE) or an RRC inactive state (RRC_INACTIVE) and (ii) relay selection or reselection occurs and a cell of selected or reselected relay UE changes while a timer T390 is running, stop timers T390 for all access categories and perform barring alleviation. (3GPP, 5.3.3.6 Cell re-selection or cell selection while T390, T300 or T302 is running (UE in RRC_IDLE). If cell selection or reselection occurs while T390 is running, stop timer T390 for all access categories and perform the actions specified in 5.3.14.4. Section 5.3.14.4, discloses T302, T390 expiry or stop (Barring alleviation))
3GPP discloses stopping timers T390 when a cell selection occurs while timer T311 and T390 are running and a suitable cell is selected, but does not explicitly teach stopping timers T390 when a relay selection occurs while timer T311 and T390 are running and a suitable relay UE is selected, and in a case where (i) the UE is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle state (RRC IDLE) or an RRC inactive state (RRC_INACTIVE) and (ii) relay selection or reselection occurs and a cell of selected or reselected relay UE changes while a timer T390 is running, stop timers T390 for all access categories and perform barring alleviation.
However, it is well known in the art that a relay UE is associated with a particular cell. For example, Back discloses in [0223]-[0225], The IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE within the connection range may determine whether the remote UE is access-barred through broadcasted SIB information and/or a discovery message. When the remote UE is unable to access due to access barring, the remote UE searches for another cell and establishes a connection with the other cell, or searches for a relay UE belonging to another cell and can establish a connection with the corresponding relay UE for a sidelink relay operation. [0167]-[0179], further discloses access barring check procedure for an access attempt associated with a certain access category (also discussed in 3GPP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of 3GPP to include the above limitations as suggested by Back, thus unnecessary operations may be prevented as indicated in [0027] of Back.
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 JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. 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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/JENKEY VAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477