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
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on January 29, 2026. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12 and 15-26 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12 and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0120476) in view of Wei et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0388904).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al discloses a method performed by a relay node (paragraph 12 [relay UE]), comprising: receiving a request for a system information block (SIB) from a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 12 [remote UE]), wherein the UE accesses a cell (paragraph 12 [serving cell]) via the relay node (see at least paragraph 111 discloses the relay UE receives assistant information request); transmitting the requested SIB to the UE (see at least paragraph 116 discloses the relay UE forwards the assistant information to the remote UE); receiving an updated version of the requested SIB from the cell (see at least paragraph 138 discloses the relay UE receives the required SIB from serving cell [s1207 of fig. 12]); and transmitting the updated version of the requested SIB to the UE (see at least paragraph 139 discloses the relay UE sends the required SIB to the remote UE).
Lee et al specifically does not disclose transmitting the updated version of the requested SIB to the UE based on the request for the SIB previously received from the UE.
However, Wei et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches transmitting the updated version of the requested SIB to the UE based on the request for the SIB previously received from the UE (see at least paragraphs 129-130 and fig. 8 [s810] discloses transmitting updated system information to remote device, in response to the remote device request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Wei et al into the system of Lee et al for purpose of remote UE receiving the updated system information; it would reduce power consumption and make efficient use of available spectrum.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al discloses maintaining an association between the UE and a SIB list, wherein the SIB list contains the requested SIB (paragraph 137).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al discloses receiving, from the UE, an indicator indicating that the requested SIB is not needed at the UE; and removing the requested SIB from the SIB list in response to receiving the indicator (paragraph 123).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al discloses in response to the SIB being updated by the cell, receiving the SIB based on the SIB list from the cell (paragraph 138); and wherein transmitting the updated version of the requested SIB to the UE comprises transmitting the updated version of the requested SIB based on the association (paragraph 139).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al discloses transmitting a SIB list indicating that the requested SIB is updated to the UE in response to receiving the updated version of the requested SIB from the cell (paragraph 139); receiving an additional request for the updated version of the requested SIB from the UE; and transmitting the updated version of the requested SIB to the UE (paragraph 139).
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al discloses further comprising at least one of: storing the requested SIB at the relay node after transmitting the requested SIB to the UE; receiving an acknowledgement of the requested SIB received from the UE, and discarding the requested SIB in response to receiving the acknowledgement and no additional request received for the requested SIB; or receiving the acknowledgement of the requested SIB received from the UE, starting a timer in response to receiving the acknowledgement, and discarding the requested SIB in response to expiry of the timer (paragraph 137) .
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al discloses at least one of: the request for the SIB is received via a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration sidelink message, which includes a SIB request list indicating the requested SIB; or the request for the SIB is received via a PC5 RRC message specified for SIB request (paragraphs 84 and 115).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al discloses further comprising: starting a timer in response to transmitting the requested SIB to the UE; receiving an acknowledgement of the requested SIB received from the UE; and stopping the timer in response to receiving the acknowledgement (paragraph 91).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al discloses a relay node (paragraph 12 [relay UE]) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory 130 (figure 5); and at least one processor 110 (figure 5)coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the relay node to: receive a request for a system information block (SIB) from a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 12 [remote UE]), wherein the UE accesses a cell (paragraph 12 [serving cell]) via the relay node (see at least paragraph 111 discloses the relay UE receives assistant information request); transmit the requested SIB to the UE (see at least paragraph 116 discloses the relay UE forwards the assistant information to the remote UE); receive an updated version of the requested SIB from the cell (see at least paragraph 138 discloses the relay UE receives the required SIB from serving cell [s1207 of fig. 12]); and transmit the updated version of the requested SIB to the UE (see at least paragraph 139 discloses the relay UE sends the required SIB to the remote UE).
Lee et al specifically does not disclose transmit the updated version of the requested SIB to the UE based on the request for the SIB previously received from the UE.
However, Wei et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches transmit the updated version of the requested SIB to the UE based on the request for the SIB previously received from the UE (see at least paragraphs 129-130 and fig. 8 [s810] discloses transmitting updated system information to remote device, in response to the remote device request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Wei et al into the system of Lee et al for purpose of remote UE receiving the updated system information; it would reduce power consumption and make efficient use of available spectrum.
Regarding claims 16-22, see above rejection of claims 2-5, 9, 11 and 12.
Regarding claim 23, Lee et al discloses a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 12 [remote UE]) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory 130 (figure 5); and at least one processor 110 (figure 5) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: transmit a request for a system information block (SIB) to a relay node (paragraph 12 [relay UE]), the UE configured to access a cell (paragraph 12 [serving cell]) via the relay node (see at least paragraph 111 discloses the relay UE receives assistant information request); receive the requested SIB from the relay node (see at least paragraph 116 discloses the relay UE forwards the assistant information to the remote UE); and receive an updated version of the requested SIB from the relay node (see at least paragraph 139 discloses the relay UE sends the required SIB to the remote UE).
Lee et al specifically does not disclose receive an updated version of the requested SIB from the relay node based on the request for the SIB previously transmitted to the relay node.
However, Wei et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches receive an updated version of the requested SIB from the relay node based on the request for the SIB previously transmitted to the relay node (see at least paragraphs 129-130 and fig. 8 [s810] discloses transmitting updated system information to remote device, in response to the remote device request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Wei et al into the system of Lee et al for purpose of remote UE receiving the updated system information; it would reduce power consumption and make efficient use of available spectrum.
Regarding claim 24, Lee et al discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit, to the relay node, an indication that the requested SIB is not needed at the UE (paragraph 123).
Regarding claim 25, Lee et al discloses a processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to: transmit a request for a system information block (SIB) to a relay node (paragraph 12 [relay UE]), the processor of a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 12 [remote UE]) configured to access a cell (paragraph 12 [serving cell]) via the relay node (see at least paragraph 111 discloses the relay UE receives assistant information request); receive the requested SIB from the relay node (see at least paragraph 116 discloses the relay UE forwards the assistant information to the remote UE); and receive an updated version of the requested SIB from the relay node (see at least paragraph 139 discloses the relay UE sends the required SIB to the remote UE).
Lee et al specifically does not disclose receive an updated version of the requested SIB from the relay node based on the request for the SIB previously transmitted to the relay node.
However, Wei et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches receive an updated version of the requested SIB from the relay node based on the request for the SIB previously transmitted to the relay node (see at least paragraphs 129-130 and fig. 8 [s810] discloses transmitting updated system information to remote device, in response to the remote device request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Wei et al into the system of Lee et al for purpose of remote UE receiving the updated system information; it would reduce power consumption and make efficient use of available spectrum.
Regarding claim 26, Lee et al discloses the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to transmit, to the relay node, an indication that the requested SIB is not needed at the UE (paragraph 123).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on January 29, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 15, 23 and 25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment. See the above rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12 and 15-26 for the relevant citations found in Lee et al and Wei et al disclosing the limitations.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights