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
The claim objection of claim 17 has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
The rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed April 16 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicants arguments regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Huang in view of Ly, the examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically the applicant argues the claim feature in claim 1 of “pause the relay link based at least on the received indication” is not disclosed in the teachings of Ly. The applicant argues that Para’s [0066-0067] of Ly describe a relay suspending a PC5 link with a remote UE when the relay experiences a failure and not the remote UE actively pausing the relay link based on the received indication, as claimed (i.e., Pg. 8 of the remarks). However the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants argument as both the remote UE and the relay UE will pause the relay link. While Para’s [0066-0067] of Ly disclose that when the relay experiences (e.g., Uu handover failure), the relay may suspend the PC5 link with the remote UE, this does not mean that the remote UE does not also suspend the relay link.
For example, in light of the applicants specification as filed, Para [0043] of the applicants specification discloses i.e., In some embodiments, relay UE 110 and remote UE 112 may keep the L2 relay link and the L2 connection in the paused state, e.g., until L2-relaying is available. Therefore both the relay UE 110 and the remote UE 112 pause the relay link until it is available again as disclosed in Para [0043] of the applicants specification.
The teachings of Ly discloses this same concept in Para [0067] i.e., “After the relay successfully reestablishes the Uu link with the base station, the relay UE may resume a suspended PC5 link with the remote UE” which suggests that both the relay UE and the remote UE pause the relay link and then resume the relay link when the relay link becomes available again.
Referring to Para [0070] of Ly as another example, Ly discloses i.e., “the relay experiences the failure and suspends the PC5 link with the remote UE. Later, the relay may resume the PC5 link after the relay successfully recovers a Uu link with a base station. However, this second approach may also take a prolonged period of time, during which the remote UE may be unable to send and/or receive data”. Therefore the UE which is unable to send and/or receive data during the prolonged period of time from when the PC5 link is suspended (i.e., paused) to the time when the PC5 link is resumed (un-paused), suggests the remote UE pauses the relay link by not transmitting or receiving data on the relay link during the time the relay link is suspended. Since the remote UE does not send and/or receive data during the time the relay link is suspended as disclosed in (Ly, Para [0070]), the remote UE does pause the relay link based on the received indication such as the RRC reconfiguration sidelink message received by the remote UE indicating the remote UE is suspended from the relay as disclosed in (Fig. 4 & Para [0066]) of Ly.
For the reasons explained, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants arguments that the relay only suspends the link and the remote UE in Ly is a passive recipient of the suspension notification. The applicant further states that “the remote UE does not actively pause the relay link based on the received indication”, however the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons explained above in that both the remote UE and rely pause or suspend the link in which the remote UE does not send and/or receive data until the relay becomes available again (Ly, i.e., Para’s [0066] and [0070]). Therefore the remote UE does pause or suspend the relay link based on the received RRC reconfiguration sidelink message received by the remote UE by not sending and/or receiving data on the link during the time the relay link is suspended till the time the relay link is resumed or becomes available again (Ly, i.e., Para’s [0066] and [0070])
Therefore Ly does disclose the claim feature in claim 1 of “pause the relay link based at least on the received indication”.
In regards to the applicants arguments further on (Pg. 8 of the remarks) that in Ly the relay suspension is triggered by a Uu radio link failure experienced by the relay itself and that claim 1 requires pausing the relay link based on a received indication that the target base station for a handover does not support relaying-a proactively communicated, handover-capability-based indication, not a failure event, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the applicant is arguing the teachings of Ly individually for teaching the requirements of claim 1 when the rejection of claim 1 is an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103.
For example the office action relies on the relay suspension in Ly being triggered by a Uu handover failure experienced by the relay (Ly, see Para [0067] i.e., When the relay experiences the failure (e.g., Uu handover failure), the relay may release or suspend a PC5 link with the remote UE).
Referring to the teachings of Huang, the relay UE experiences a handover failure of the relay UE based on the target base station for a handover not supporting relaying (Huang, see Para’s [0010] & [0046-0054]), Therefore a handover failure experienced by the relay UE in the teachings of Huang is based on the target base station for the handover not support relaying in which an indication indicating the handover failure reasoning (i.e., target BS does not support relaying) is received by the remote UE from the relay UE (Huang, see Para’s [0053-0054]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the handover failure experienced by the relay as disclosed in Ly could be based on a handover failure due to the target base station for the handover not support relaying which is indicated in the indication received by the remote UE as disclosed in Huang which results in pausing the relay link based on the received indication at the remote UE.
In regards to the applicants arguments that claim 1 is fundamentally different from Ly’s teaching where the relay unilaterally suspends the link and merely informs the remote UE of the fact and that a remote UE initiated pause is unsupported in Ly, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reason explained above with respect to Ly in that both the relay and remote UE pause the relay link.
In regards to the applicants arguments that even if Huang and Ly were combined as proposed by the examiner, the combination would still fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention, the examiner respectfully disagrees. For example the applicant states that Huang teaches forwarding an indication to the remote UE that the target base station does not support relaying, but the response in Huang is a “D2D relay connection release indication” (i.e., termination), not pausing, (Huang, Para [0054]). However the examiner respectfully disagrees, as the indication such as the “D2D relay connection release indication” as disclosed in Para [0054] in Huang is the same indication as the RRC reconfiguration indication disclosed in Ly (see Fig. 4 i.e., RRC reconfiguration sidelink indication & Para [0066]). That is the “D2D relay connection release indication” as disclosed in Para [0054] in Huang is also an RRC reconfiguration message or indication. Evidence of this is disclosed in the reference of Cheng et al. US (2024/0007922) which is not relied upon as prior art, but for showing that the RRC reconfiguration message is a “D2D relay connection release indication” (Cheng, see Para [0038] i.e., RRC reconfiguration message including an indication to release a PC5-to-Uu bearer mapping).
Since the RRC reconfiguration message disclosed in Ly may be used to release (i.e., “terminate”) or suspend (i.e., pause) the relay link (Ly, see Fig. 4 i.e., RRC reconfiguration & Para [0066]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the RRC reconfiguration message (i.e., “D2D relay connection release indication”) received by the remote UE as disclosed in Huang to be the RRC reconfiguration message received by the remote UE to instead pause the relay link as disclosed in Ly, because the motivation lies in LY that the remote UE pauses the relay link based on the received RRC reconfiguration message due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link.
For the reasons explained the combination of Huang in view of Ly does disclose the claimed invention of claim 1. The dependent claims remain rejected over the prior art (Of Record) based at least on their dependence to independent claim 1.
In regards to the applicants arguments regarding independent claim 12. The examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically the applicant argues the claim feature of “the apparatus is caused to receive, from the remote user equipment, a request for pause of the relay link” with respect to the combination of Huang in view of Ly, and further in view of Ozturk. More specifically the applicant states on Pg. 15 of the remarks that the examiner relies on Para’s [0093-0094] of Ozturk for this missing feature. However the examiner respectfully disagrees as the examiner does not rely on the single reference of Ozturk for disclosing the claim limitation, but rather the combined teachings of Huang in view of Ly, and further in view of Ozturk arriving to the claim limitation of “the apparatus is caused to receive, from the remote user equipment, a request for pause of the relay link”. For example, referring to the teachings of Ly, Ly discloses that the relay link such as the PC5 link is paused between the remote UE and the relay UE (see Para’s [0066-0067]). In light of the applicants specification in Para [0073], the remote UE 112 transitions from the connected state to an inactive state when pausing the relay link (i.e., Para [0073] of the applicants specification).
Since Ozturk discloses the UE transmits an RRC suspend request to move from RRC connected state to an RRC inactive state resulting in suspending its link or connection (Ozturk, Para [0093]), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the remote UE which suspends its link such as its relay PC5 link to the relay UE as disclosed in Huang in view of Ly to transition to the inactive state for its link by sending the RRC suspend request disclosed in Ozturk who discloses the RRC suspend request moves the UE from the RRC connected state to an RRC inactive state resulting in pausing its relay connection. Based on the combined teachings of the references, it may be possible that the RRC suspend request sent from the remote UE toward the network can be received by the relay UE for pausing the relay link. For the reasons explained, the combined teachings of Huang in view of Ly, and further in view of Ozturk discloses the claim feature in claim 12 of “the apparatus is caused to receive, from the remote user equipment, a request for pause of the relay link”.
In regards to the applicants arguments regarding the applicants specification in Para [0073] and Ozturk, the applicant argues a first step and second step of transmitting separate RRC suspend messages to the relay UE and the network (i.e., base station) and that Ozturk is directed towards the latter step and not the former. However claim 12 does not claim distinct or separate RRC suspend requests for a relay directed step and a network directed step in which the claimed request pertains to one and not the other. For the reasons explained above, the combined teachings of Huang in view of Ly, and further in view of Ozturk arrives to the claim feature in claim 12 of “the apparatus is caused to receive, from the remote user equipment, a request for pause of the relay link”.
Therefore the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained over the combination of Huang in view of Ly, and further in view of Ozturk for the reasons explained. The dependent claims remain rejected over the prior art (Of Record) based on their dependence to independent claim 12.
In regards to the applicants arguments regarding independent claim 16 on (Pg. 9 of the remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to the claim amendment made to claim 16, a new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth. However the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants argument of claim 16 in that claim 16 requires the apparatus to “proactively” determining that the target base station does not support relaying as claim 16 does not claim the term “proactively” or a proactive determination. Therefore Huang does disclose the claim feature in claim 16 of an apparatus (Fig. 1 i.e., enB1) determining that a target base station for a handover of a relay user equipment does not support relaying in which an indication is transmitted to the relay UE (see Para’s [0010], [0046-0051], & [0053-0054])
Claim 16 also does not claim the limitation of transmitting an indication to the relay UE and/or remote UE so that the relay link can be paused. The applicant further argues that Huang does not disclose this proactive determination followed by a pause indication. However the claim language of proactive determination and “a pause indication” is not claimed in independent claim 16. As previously mentioned, a new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth for claim 16 with respect to the newly added limitation. Therefore applicants arguments presented with respect to the newly added limitation in claim 16 are considered moot.
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.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 4 i.e., UE 4 & Para’s [0010] i.e., remote D2D UE & [0128] i.e., served D2D UE & [0185] i.e., terminal device to perform the method), comprising: at least one processor (see Para [0187] i.e., processor) and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor (see Para’s [0185-0186] i.e., the computer software product is stored in a storage medium (for example, an ROM/RAM, a magnetic disk, or a compact disk), including several instructions for enabling a terminal device to perform the method in an embodiments of the disclosure & [0187] i.e., a processor performs the system for switching a relay node according to the program codes stored in the storage medium) to: receive an indication indicating that a target base station of the apparatus for a handover does not support relaying, (see Para’s [0010] i.e., the relay UE has a cell handover and is switched from one base station to another base station, and a target base station to which the relay UE is switched may not support the D2D relay, [0014], [0046-0051] i.e., the target base station determines not to perform the handover, and replies a handover failed message to the source base station…the reason for that the target base station determines not to perform the handover include at least one of the following: the target base station does not support the relay function from the D2D UE to the network, [0053] i.e., the source base station sends indication information to the D2D relay node; and the source base station sends the indication information to the D2D relay node via an air interface handover command, and the indication information includes at least one of the following: an indication that the target base station does not support the D2D relay functions, [0054] i.e., after the D2D relay node receives the indication information sent by the source base station, the method includes: the D2D relay node sends the indication information to the served D2D UE, the indication information includes at least one of the following: an indication that the target base station not supports the D2D relay functions, [0067], & [0183] i.e., RRC reconfiguration message sent from source base station to the Relay UE)
wherein the apparatus is in a radio resource control connected state and has a relay link with a serving base station via a relay user equipment; (see Fig. 1 i.e., UE 4 is in a connected state based on a relay link via UE3 to eNB 1 & Para’ [0010] i.e., the D2D UE may be served as a relay node, such that a remote D2D UE at the edge of the coverage of the cellular network or out of the coverage can perform cellular communication with the network by means of the relay node UE (i.e., remote D2D UE is in a connected state) & [0053-0054] i.e., source base station of D2D relay node)
While Huang discloses the apparatus (i.e., remote D2D UE) receives the indication which may be an RRC reconfiguration message indicating that a target base station of the apparatus for a handover does not support relaying which is based on failure to handover to the target base station (see Para’s [0010], [0046-0051], [0053-0054], & [0183]), Huang does not disclose and pause the relay link based at least on the received indication and does not explicitly disclose the apparatus is in a radio resource control connected state. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693).
LY discloses wherein an apparatus (see Fig. 4 i.e., remote UE) is in a radio resource control connected state and has a relay link with a serving base station (see Fig. 4 i.e., base station) via a relay user equipment (see Fig. 4, relay), (see Para’s [0061] i.e., the remote UE may be in an RRC connected state & [0066-0067] i.e., As shown in Fig. 4, the remote UE and the relay may initially be in an RRC connected state)
and pause the relay link based at least on a received indication (i.e., RRC reconfiguration sidelink message) based on a handover failure of the relay user equipment (see Fig. 4 & Para’s [0066] i.e., As shown in Fig. 4, the remote UE and the relay may initially be in an RRC connected state. The relay may detect a failure on a Uu link between the relay and the base station when the remote UE are connected to the relay. The failure may be, for example, due to a Uu handover failure (i.e., handover failure will be for a handover failure to a target base station)…The relay may send an RRC reconfiguration sidelink message (i.e., “indication”) to the remote UE to indicate that the remote UE has been suspended from the relay (i.e., “pause the relay link”) & [0067] i.e., When the relay experiences the failure (e.g., Uu handover failure), the relay may suspend (i.e., “pause”) a PC5 link with the remote UE…After the relay successfully reestablishes the Uu link with the base station, the relay UE may resume a suspended PC5 link with the remote UE & [0070]).
(LY suggests the remote UE pauses the relay link based on the received indication due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link, (see Para’s [0066-0067])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE apparatus which receives the indication indicating that a target base station of the apparatus for a handover does not support relaying which is based on failure to handover to the target base station as disclosed in Huang to pause the relay link based at least on the received indication as disclosed in the teachings of Ly who discloses a remote UE pauses the relay link based at least on a received indication from a relay UE due to a handover failure of the relay user equipment, because the motivation lies in LY that the remote UE pauses the relay link based on the received indication due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:Huang, see Para’s [0045-0051] i.e., reasons the target base station determines not to perform the handover include the target base station not supporting the relay function of the D2D UE to the network & [0053-0054] i.e., the indication information includes a D2D relay connection release indication (i.e., suggests the remote UE will release or terminate the D2D relay connection)…and available D2D relay node information)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the termination of the relay link comprises at least one of the following: initiating a re-selection of another relay user equipment (Huang, see Para’s [0053-0054] i.e., the indication information includes at least one of the following: a D2D relay connection release indication…and available D2D relay node information (i.e., suggests re-selection of another relay UE)); establishing a direct connection between the apparatus and a base station; and transitioning to a radio resource control idle state.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including pausing the relay link (LY, see Para [0067] i.e. suspend a PC5 link) and wherein a context of the apparatus is associated with the relay user equipment and the relay link (Ly, see Para’s [0066-0067] i.e., context information of the relay and associated remote UEs will be stored when suspending and resuming the PC5 links), but does not disclose the claim features of wherein pausing the relay link comprises: transmitting to the serving base station, a radio resource control message to request a transition from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state, wherein a context of the apparatus in the radio resource control inactivate state is associated with the relay user equipment and the relay link; and transitioning from the radio resource control connected state to the radio resource control inactive state. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Ozturk discloses wherein pausing the relay link comprises: transmitting to the serving base station, a radio resource control message to request a transition from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state, (In light of the applicants specification in Para [0066], pausing the relay link by transmitting a RRC message to request the transition from the RRC connected state to the RRC inactive state by the apparatus (i.e., remote UE) is performed by transmitting a RRC suspend request to the network, (Ozturk, see Para [0093] i.e., While in RRC connected state 706…the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708))
wherein a context of the apparatus in the radio resource control inactivate state is associated with the link, (see Para [0093] i.e., the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708… Upon receiving the RRC suspend request, the UE context can be stored in the last serving base station (e.g., gNB))
and transitioning from the radio resource control connected state to the radio resource control inactive state (see Para [0093] i.e., the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708).
(Ozturk suggests upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection (see Para’s [0093-0094])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the pausing or suspending of the relay link performed by the apparatus as disclosed in Huang in view of LY to be performed by transmitting to the serving base station, a radio resource control message to request a transition from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state such as the RRC suspend request as disclosed in the teachings of Ozturk which results in the context of the apparatus in the radio resource control inactivate state being associated with the relay user equipment and the relay link, because the motivation lies in Ozturk that upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: receive a radio network temporary identifier from the serving base station, wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising the apparatus and the relay user equipment. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176).
Panteleev discloses receiving a radio network temporary identifier from a serving base station, wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising the apparatus and the relay user equipment, (see Para’s [0034-0036], [0114] i.e., To enable reception of a single DCI grant by at least two UEs (the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106), the UEs may be configured with a common/paired RNTI, e.g. SL-RLY-RNTI (i.e., RNTI identifies the pair comprising the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106). The DCI may be scrambled with this SL-RLY-RNTI, & [0116] i.e., eNB may or may not configure the common/paired RNTI).
(Panteleev suggests the remote UE and the relay UE is configured with the common paired RNTI to enable reception of a single DCI grant by the UEs in order to efficiently perform the sidelink transmission and reception according to the DCI grant, (see Para [0114])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE apparatus which performs communication with the serving base station via the sidelink with the relay UE as disclosed in Huang in view of LY receive a radio network temporary identifier from a serving base station, wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising the apparatus and the relay user equipment as disclosed in the teachings of Panteleev because the motivation lies in Panteleev that the remote UE and the relay UE is configured with a common paired RNTI to enable reception of a single DCI grant by the UEs in order to efficiently perform the sidelink transmission and reception according to the DCI grant.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693) and further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jackowski et al. US (2013/0304796).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses, and further in view of Ozturk discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to buffer uplink data while the relay link is paused. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Jackowski et al. US (2013/0304796).
Jackowski discloses a UE to buffer uplink data while a link is paused (see Fig. 4C i.e., client 102 & Para’s [0214] & [0224] i.e., the data manager may attempt to pass the data to a peer unit via the tunnel interface. If the tunnel interface refuses the data, for example due to congestion or a paused connection, data manager 416 may store the data in a per-connection queue or buffer. This queue or buffer may then be added to a pending send list…Upon receipt of a connection resume from the tunnel interface, data manager 416 will attempt to send data from the queues or buffers in the pending send list).
(Jackowski suggests the tunnel interface of the UE refuses to send data due to congestion or a paused connection, the data manager of the UE may store the data in a per-connection queue or buffer until the connection is resumed in which the UE will send data from the buffer for efficiently sending the data when the connection is resumed, (see Para [0224])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE apparatus which pauses the relay link as disclosed in Huang in view of LY discloses, and further in view of Ozturk to buffer uplink data while the relay link is paused based on the teachings of Jackowski who discloses a UE to buffer uplink data while a link is paused, because the motivation lies in Jackowski that the tunnel interface of the UE refuses to send data due to congestion or a paused connection, the data manager of the UE may store the data in a per-connection queue or buffer until the connection is resumed in which the UE will send data from the buffer for efficiently sending the data when the connection is resumed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), and further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ahmad et al. US (2023/0189059).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Huang in view of LY, and further in view of Ozturk discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: start a timer when pausing the relay link, wherein the timer is configured by the relay user equipment or the serving base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Ahmad et al. US (2023/0189059).
Ahmad discloses a remote WTRU to: start a timer when pausing the relay link, (see Para’s [0103] i.e., the remote WTRUs may be configured with a PC5 back-off timer and configured to refrain from initiating a PC5 connection (or otherwise communicating via the PC5 with) the relay WTRU until expiration of the PC back-off timer. The relay WTRU may provide to the remote WTRUs values for their respective PC5 back off timers, [0114] i.e., the relay WTRU may inform the remote WTRU of the congestion and the remote WTRU may refrain from initiating a PC5 connection (or otherwise communicating via the PC5) with the relay WTRU based on such information (i.e., “pausing the relay link”), [0115] i.e., the relay WTRU may provide an explicit congestion indication may be included with a signaled value of the PC5 back off timer, [0116] i.e., the relay WTRU may send the backoff indication and/or value of the PC5 back off timer, [0117-0118] i.e., remote WTRU resumes service based on cancelling the PC5 back off timer, & [0121] i.e., The remote WTRU may decide to preserve its connection with the current relay WTRU and stay inactive for a time period).
wherein the timer is configured by the relay user equipment or the serving base station see Para’s [0103] i.e., the remote WTRUs may be configured with a PC5 back-off timer and configured to refrain from initiating a PC5 connection (or otherwise communicating via the PC5 with) the relay WTRU until expiration of the PC back-off timer. The relay WTRU may provide to the remote WTRUs values for their respective PC5 back off timers, [0114-0115] i.e., the relay WTRU may provide an explicit congestion indication may be included with a signaled value of the PC5 back off timer, [0116] i.e., the relay WTRU may send the backoff indication and/or value of the PC5 back off timer).
(Ahmad suggests the remote WTRU uses the timer when pausing the relay link during congestion in order to resume the service over the relay link when the relay communication is available to be performed with the relay WTRU for preventing transmission failure, (see Para’s [0114-0118])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the relay link paused between the remote UE and the relay UE which is resumed again when relay communications is available to be performed with the relay WTRU as disclosed in Huang in view of LY, and further in view of Ozturk to use and start the timer when pausing the relay link between the remote WTRU and relay WTRU as disclosed in the teachings of Ahmad, because the motivation lies in Ahmad that remote WTRU uses the timer when pausing the relay link during congestion in order to resume the service over the relay link when the relay communication is available to be performed with the relay WTRU for preventing transmission failure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), and further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Huang in view of Ozturk discloses the apparatus according to claim 2 including receiving an indication indicating whether a target base station supports relaying (Huang, see Para’s [0044], [0053-0054], [0079], [0164-0165], & [0183]), but does not disclose the claim features of wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: receive an indication indicating that a subsequent target base station for a subsequent handover supports relaying; and resume the relay link with the subsequent target base station via the relay user equipment. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693).
LY discloses a remote UE to receive an indication indicating that a subsequent target base station for a subsequent handover supports relaying; (see Para [0067] i.e., When the relay experiences failure (e.g., Uu handover failure), the relay may suspend a PC5 link with the remote UE…After the relay successfully reestablishes the Uu link with the base station, the relay UE may resume a suspended PC5 link with the remote UE and may resume advertising relay support in discovery messages transmitted by the relay (i.e., remote UE will receive signaling indication from the relay indicating that a subsequent target base station for a subsequent handover supports relaying in order to perform the resume the suspended PC5 link for a subsequent handover & [0070] i.e., the relay experiences the failure and suspends the PC5 link with the remote UE. Later, the relay may resume the PC5 link after the relay successfully recovers a Uu link with a base station (i.e., may be a subsequent target base station based on Uu handover failure) )
and resume the relay link with the subsequent target base station via the relay user equipment (see Para [0067] i.e., When the relay experiences failure (e.g., Uu handover failure), the relay may suspend a PC5 link with the remote UE…After the relay successfully reestablishes the Uu link with the base station, the relay UE may resume a suspended PC5 link with the remote UE and may resume advertising relay support in discovery messages transmitted by the relay & [0070])
(LY suggests the remote UE pauses the relay link based on the received indication due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link, (see Para’s [0066-0067])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE that receives an indication indicating whether a target base station supports relaying as disclosed in Huang in view of Ozturk to receive an indication indicating that a subsequent target base station for a subsequent handover supports relaying and resume the relay link with the subsequent target base station via the relay user equipment as discloses in the teachings of LY because the motivation lies in LY that the remote UE pauses the relay link based on the received indication due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link
The combination of Huang in view of LY, and further in view of Ozturk does not disclose the claim feature of by using the allocated radio network temporary identifier. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176).
Panteleev discloses using an allocated radio network temporary identifier for communication configured between a remote UE, relay UE, and a serving base station (see Para’s [0034-0036], [0114] i.e., To enable reception of a single DCI grant by at least two UEs (the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106), the UEs may be configured with a common/paired RNTI, e.g. SL-RLY-RNTI (i.e., RNTI identifies the pair comprising the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106). The DCI may be scrambled with this SL-RLY-RNTI, & [0116] i.e., eNB may or may not configure the common/paired RNTI).
(Panteleev suggests the remote UE and the relay UE is configured with the common paired RNTI to enable reception of a single DCI grant by the UEs in order to efficiently perform the sidelink transmission and reception according to the DCI grant, (see Para [0114])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the communication performed between the remote UE and the relay UE via the target base station which is a serving base station as disclosed in Huang in view of LY, and further in view of Ozturk to use the allocated radio network temporary identifier used for communication configured between a remote UE, relay UE, and the serving base station as disclosed in Panteleev because the motivation lies in Panteleev that the remote UE and the relay UE is configured with the common paired RNTI to enable reception of a single DCI grant by the UEs in order to efficiently perform the sidelink transmission and reception according to the DCI grant.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382), and further in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ahmad et al. US (2023/0189059).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Huang in view of LY, further in view of Ozturk, and further in view of Panteleev discloses the apparatus according to claim 6 including receiving the indication indicating that the subsequent target base station for the subsequent handover supports relaying (LY, see Para’s [0067] & [0070]), but does not disclose wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: stop the timer upon receiving the indication when the timer is running. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Ahmad et al. US (2023/0189059).
Ahmad discloses a remote WTRU stopping the timer upon receiving an indication indicating that relay communication is available to be resumed with the relay WTRU when the timer is running (see Para’s [0117] i.e., the relay WTRU may initiate another link modification procedure when the congestion has abated (e.g., prior to expiration of a PC back-off timer) (i.e., “when the timer is running”) to indicate to the remote WTRU that it may resume the service & [0118] i.e., the relay WTRU may initiate a cancelation procedure by sending a “cancel back off” indication to the remote WTRU, e.g., in the keep alive message and/or another PC5-S message, such as a link modification request. The remote WTRU may receive the “cancel back off” indication, and may reset the PC5 back off timer (e.g., set the value to zero) (i.e., “stop the timer”) and in turn, allow the remote WTRU to resume service and/or come out of dormant state).
(Ahmad suggests the remote WTRU uses the timer when pausing the relay link during congestion in order to resume the service over the relay link when the relay communication is available to be performed with the relay WTRU for preventing transmission failure, (see Para’s [0114-0118])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE which receives the indication indicating that the subsequent target base station for the subsequent handover supports relaying for resuming the PC5 connection as disclosed in Huang in view of LY, further in view of Ozturk, and further in view of Panteleev to be performed by stopping a timer upon receiving the indication when the timer is running based on the teachings of Ahmad who discloses a remote WTRU stopping the timer upon receiving an indication indicating that relay communication is available to be resumed with the relay WTRU when the timer is running, because the motivation lies in Ahmad that the remote WTRU uses the timer when pausing the relay link during congestion in order to resume the service over the relay link when the relay communication is available to be performed with the relay WTRU for preventing transmission failure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382), and further in view of Ahmad et al. US (2023/0189059) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Du et al. US (2014/0080531).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Huang in view of LY, further in view of Ozturk, and further in view of Ahmad discloses the apparatus according to claim 5 including a wait or backoff timer (Ahmad, see Para [0108]), but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: request the relay user equipment or the serving base station to extend the timer. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Du et al. US (2014/0080531).
Du discloses a UE request the serving base station to extend a wait timer, (see Para [0004] i.e., where a “delay tolerant access” has been agreed to identify the delay tolerant request using one of the spare value of RRC establishment cause. When eNB detects the cause, it could set an extended wait timer when responding to the request message so that the UE could be delayed from access reattempt for a longer period of time up to 30 minutes)
(Du suggests the eNB sets an extended wait timer based on the RRC establishment cause received from the UE for flexible controlling the wait time for the UE based on the cause, (see Para [0004])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the UE which does not perform communication with the relay link according to the configured back-off timer as disclosed in Huang in view of LY, further in view of Ozturk, and further in view of Ahmad to request the serving base station to extend the wait timer based on the teachings of Du who discloses a UE request the serving base station to extend a wait timer, because the motivation lies in Du that the eNB sets an extended wait timer based on the RRC establishment cause received from the UE for flexible controlling the wait time for the UE based on the cause.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382), and further in view of Ahmad et al. US (2023/0189059) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of da Silva et al. US (2021/0127445).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Huang in view of LY, further in view of Ozturk, and further in view of Ahmad discloses the apparatus according to claim 5, but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: upon expiration of the timer, terminate the relay link. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of da Silva et al. US (2021/0127445).
da Silva discloses a WTR to upon expiration of the timer, terminate the current link (see Para’s [0078] & [0084] i.e., the UE may start the reject wait timer (e.g., T302)…Consequently, the UE may attempt to send that periodic RNAU as soon as it is able to perform another resume attempt including e.g. upon cell reselection and/or upon expiry of T302 (i.e., cell reselection will terminate the current link of the UE)).
(da Silva suggests the UE performs a resume attempt upon cell reselection and upon expiry of the T302 wait timer, for quickly resuming the connection without using additional signaling overhead required for reestablishing the connection, (see Para’s [0078] & [0084])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE to perform upon expiration of the backoff timer as disclosed in Huang in view of LY, further in view of Ozturk, and further in view of Ahmad terminating of the relay link based on the teachings of da Silva who discloses a WTR to upon expiration of a T302 timer, terminate the current link based on performing a cell reselection procedure, because the motivation lies in da Silva that the UE performs a resume attempt upon cell reselection and upon expiry of the T302 wait timer, for quickly resuming the connection without using additional signaling overhead required for reestablishing the connection.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), and further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Regarding Claim 12, Huang discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 1 i.e., relay apparatus UE3 & Para’s [0053-0054] i.e., D2D relay node), comprising: at least one processor (see Para’s [0185-0187] i.e., UE processor) and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor (see Para’s [0185-0186] i.e., the computer software product is stored in a storage medium (for example, an ROM/RAM, a magnetic disk, or a compact disk), including several instructions for enabling a terminal device to perform the method in an embodiments of the disclosure & [0187] i.e., a processor performs the system for switching a relay node according to the program codes stored in the storage medium) to: receive, from a serving base station, an indication indicating that a target base station of the apparatus for a handover does not support relaying, (see Para’s [0010] i.e., the relay UE has a cell handover and is switched from one base station to another base station, and a target base station to which the relay UE is switched may not support the D2D relay, [0014], [0046-0051] i.e., the target base station determines not to perform the handover, and replies a handover failed message to the source base station…the reason for that the target base station determines not to perform the handover include at least one of the following: the target base station does not support the relay function from the D2D UE to the network, [0053] i.e., the source base station sends indication information to the D2D relay node; and the source base station sends the indication information to the D2D relay node via an air interface handover command, and the indication information includes at least one of the following: an indication that the target base station does not support the D2D relay functions, [0054] i.e., after the D2D relay node receives the indication information sent by the source base station, the method includes: the D2D relay node sends the indication information to the served D2D UE, the indication information includes at least one of the following: an indication that the target base station not supports the D2D relay functions, [0067], & [0183] i.e., RRC reconfiguration message sent from source base station to the Relay UE)
wherein the apparatus relays a relay link of a remote user equipment to the serving base station and the remote user equipment is in a radio resource control connected state; (see Fig. 1 i.e., UE 4 is in a connected state based on a relay link via UE3 (i.e., “apparatus”) to eNB 1 & Para’ [0010] i.e., the D2D UE may be served as a relay node, such that a remote D2D UE at the edge of the coverage of the cellular network or out of the coverage can perform cellular communication with the network by means of the relay node UE (i.e., remote D2D UE is in a connected state) & [0053-0054] i.e., source base station of D2D relay node)
forward the indication to the remote user equipment, (see [0054] i.e., after the D2D relay node receives the indication information sent by the source base station, the method includes: the D2D relay node sends the indication information to the served D2D UE, the indication information includes at least one of the following: an indication that the target base station not supports the D2D relay functions)
Huang does not explicitly disclose the claim feature of the remote user equipment is in a radio resource control connected state. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693).
LY discloses wherein a remote UE (see Fig. 4 i.e., remote UE) is in a radio resource control connected state and has a relay link with a serving base station (see Fig. 4 i.e., base station) via a relay user equipment (see Fig. 4, relay), (see Para’s [0061] i.e., the remote UE may be in an RRC connected state & [0066-0067] i.e., As shown in Fig. 4, the remote UE and the relay may initially be in an RRC connected state)
(LY suggests the remote UE pauses the relay link based on a received indication due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link, (see Para’s [0066-0067])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE apparatus which receives the indication indicating that a target base station of the apparatus for a handover does not support relaying which is based on failure to handover to the target base station as disclosed in Huang to be in a radio resource control connected state when connected to the relay UE apparatus as disclosed in the teachings of Ly who discloses a remote UE which is in a RRC connected state to a relay UE pauses the relay link based at least on a received indication from the relay UE due to a handover failure of the relay user equipment, because the motivation lies in LY that the remote UE in the RRC connected state pauses the relay link based on a received indication due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station, for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link.
While the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the remote UE pauses the relay link (LY, see Para’s [0066-0067] i.e., remote UE and relay UE suspend (i.e., “pause”) the PC5 link), the combination of Huang in view of LY does not disclose the claim feature of and receive, from the remote user equipment, a request for pause of the relay link. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Ozturk discloses receiving, from a user equipment, a request for pause of the link of the UE (In light of the applicants specification in Para [0066], the request for pausing the relay link is performed by the remote UE by transmitting a RRC suspend request to the relay UE and/or the network, (Ozturk, see Para’s [0093-0094] i.e., While in RRC connected state 706…the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708 (i.e., pauses the UEs link). Upon receiving the RRC suspend request, the UE context of the UE can be stored in the last serving base station))
(Ozturk suggests upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection (see Para’s [0093-0094])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the pausing or suspending of the relay link performed by the remote UE and the relay UE as disclosed in Huang in view of LY to be performed by the remote UE transmitting an RRC suspend request to the network as disclosed in the teachings of Ozturk which results in the relay UE receiving, from the remote user equipment, a request for pause of the relay link, because the motivation lies in Ozturk that upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the apparatus according to claim 12 including pausing the relay link (LY, see Para [0067] i.e. suspend a PC5 link) and wherein a context of the apparatus is associated with the relay user equipment and the relay link (Ly, see Para’s [0066-0067] i.e., context information of the relay and associated remote UEs will be stored when suspending and resuming the PC5 links), but does not disclose the pause of the relay link comprising: transitioning the remote user equipment from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state, wherein a context of the remote user equipment in the radio resource control inactivate state is associated with the apparatus and the relay link. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Ozturk discloses wherein pausing the relay link comprises: transitioning the remote UE from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state, (see Para [0093] i.e., While in RRC connected state 706…the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708))
wherein a context of the UE in the radio resource control inactivate state is associated with the link, (see Para [0093] i.e., the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708… Upon receiving the RRC suspend request, the UE context can be stored in the last serving base station (e.g., gNB))
(Ozturk suggests upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection (see Para’s [0093-0094])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the pausing or suspending of the relay link performed by the remote UE and the relay UE as disclosed in Huang in view of LY to be performed transitioning the UE from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state as disclosed in the teachings of Ozturk which results in the context of the apparatus in the radio resource control inactivate state being associated with the relay user equipment and the relay link, because the motivation lies in Ozturk that upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: transmit, to the serving base station, a radio resource control message to request for transitioning the remote user equipment from the radio resource control connected state to the radio resource control inactive state. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Ozturk discloses wherein pausing the relay link comprises: transmitting to the serving base station, a radio resource control message to request a transition the UE from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state, (In light of the applicants specification in Para [0066], pausing the relay link by transmitting a RRC message to request the transition from the RRC connected state to the RRC inactive state by the apparatus (i.e., remote UE) is performed by transmitting a RRC suspend request to the network, (Ozturk, see Para [0093] i.e., While in RRC connected state 706…the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708))
(Ozturk suggests upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection (see Para’s [0093-0094])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the pausing or suspending of the relay link performed by the remote UE as disclosed in Huang in view of LY to be performed by transmitting to the serving base station, a radio resource control message to request a transition from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state such as the RRC suspend request as disclosed in the teachings of Ozturk, because the motivation lies in Ozturk that upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), and further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Huang in view of LY, and further in view of Ozturk discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose the claim feature of receive a radio network temporary identifier from the serving base station, wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising the apparatus and the remote equipment. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176).
Panteleev discloses receiving a radio network temporary identifier from a serving base station, wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising a relay apparatus and a remote user equipment, (see Para’s [0034-0036], [0114] i.e., To enable reception of a single DCI grant by at least two UEs (the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106), the UEs may be configured with a common/paired RNTI, e.g. SL-RLY-RNTI (i.e., RNTI identifies the pair comprising the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106). The DCI may be scrambled with this SL-RLY-RNTI, & [0116] i.e., eNB may or may not configure the common/paired RNTI).
(Panteleev suggests the remote UE and the relay UE is configured with the common paired RNTI to enable reception of a single DCI grant by the UEs in order to efficiently perform the sidelink transmission and reception according to the DCI grant, (see Para [0114])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the relay UE apparatus which performs communication with the serving base station and the remote UE via the sidelink as disclosed in Huang in view of LY and further in view of Ozturk to receive a radio network temporary identifier from a serving base station, wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising the relay apparatus and the remote user equipment as disclosed in the teachings of Panteleev, because the motivation lies in Panteleev that the remote UE and the relay UE is configured with a common paired RNTI to enable reception of a single DCI grant by the UEs in order to efficiently perform the sidelink transmission and reception according to the DCI grant.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), and further in view of Eglip et al. US (2022/0304098).
Regarding Claim 16, Huang discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 1 i.e., enB1), comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 1 i.e., eNB1 includes a processor & Para’s [0185] & [0188]) and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor (see Para’s [0185] & [0188] i.e., the steps may be implemented by program codes executable by the computing devices such that they may be stored in storage devices and performed by the computing devices) to: determine that a target base station for a handover of a relay user equipment does not support relaying; (see Para’s [0010] i.e., the relay UE has a cell handover and is switched from one base station to another base station, and a target base station to which the relay UE is switched may not support the D2D relay, [0014], [0046-0051] i.e., the target base station determines not to perform the handover, and replies a handover failed message to the source base station…the reason for that the target base station determines not to perform the handover include at least one of the following: the target base station does not support the relay function from the D2D UE to the network, [0053] i.e., the source base station sends indication information to the D2D relay node; and the source base station sends the indication information to the D2D relay node via an air interface handover command, and the indication information includes at least one of the following: an indication that the target base station does not support the D2D relay functions, [0054] i.e., after the D2D relay node receives the indication information sent by the source base station, the method includes: the D2D relay node sends the indication information to the served D2D UE, the indication information includes at least one of the following: an indication that the target base station not supports the D2D relay functions, [0067], & [0183] i.e., RRC reconfiguration message sent from source base station to the Relay UE)
and transmit, to a relay user equipment and/or a remote user equipment, an indication indicating that the target base station for the handover does not support relaying, (see Fig. 1 i.e., relay UE3 & Para’s [0053-0054] i.e., the source base station sends indication information to the D2D relay node which includes an indication that the target base station does not support the D2D relay functions)
wherein the remote user equipment is in a radio resource control connected state and has a relay link with the apparatus via the relay user equipment, (see Fig. 1 i.e., UE 4 is in a connected state based on a relay link via UE3 (i.e., “apparatus”) to eNB 1 & Para’ [0010] i.e., the D2D UE may be served as a relay node, such that a remote D2D UE at the edge of the coverage of the cellular network or out of the coverage can perform cellular communication with the network by means of the relay node UE (i.e., remote D2D UE is in a connected state) & [0053-0054] i.e., source base station of D2D relay node)
Huang does not explicitly disclose the claim feature of the remote user equipment is in a radio resource control connected state. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693).
LY discloses wherein a remote UE (see Fig. 4 i.e., remote UE) is in a radio resource control connected state and has a relay link with a serving base station (see Fig. 4 i.e., base station) via a relay user equipment (see Fig. 4, relay), (see Para’s [0061] i.e., the remote UE may be in an RRC connected state & [0066-0067] i.e., As shown in Fig. 4, the remote UE and the relay may initially be in an RRC connected state)
(LY suggests the remote UE pauses the relay link based on a received indication due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link, (see Para’s [0066-0067])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE apparatus which receives the indication indicating that a target base station of the apparatus for a handover does not support relaying which is based on failure to handover to the target base station as disclosed in Huang to be in a radio resource control connected state when connected to the base station via the relay UE as disclosed in the teachings of Ly who discloses a remote UE which is in a RRC connected state to a base station via a relay UE pauses the relay link based at least on a received indication from the relay UE due to a handover failure of the relay user equipment, because the motivation lies in LY that the remote UE in the RRC connected state pauses the relay link based on a received indication due to a handover failure of the relay UE in which the paused link may be resumed when the relay UE successfully reestablishes a Uu link with a base station, for preserving the PC5 link in order to quickly resume the PC5 link resulting in saving signaling overhead from reestablishing the PC5 link.
While Ly discloses the remote UE and the relay UE are paused as a pair (see Para’s [0067] & [0070] i.e., PC5 link is suspended between the relay UE and the remote UE), the combination of Huang in view of Ly does not disclose the claim feature of send, to a core network, a report indicating that the remote user equipment and the relay user equipment are paused as a pair. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Eglip et al. US (2022/0304098).
Eglip discloses send, to a core network, a report indicating that a first user equipment and a second user equipment are paused as a pair (see Para’s [0043-0046] i.e., In step 308, AMF which may execute method 300 receives the RRC Inactive transition report from a base station…the RRC Inactive transition report indicates the state of the UE such as inactive state (i.e., “paused”), [0048-0049] i.e., the RRC inactive transition report may include multiple UE IDs (i.e., “pair”) [0052] i.e., method 400 builds an event for the RRC inactive transition report…the method 400 may build the event by combining UE IDs and their corresponding states (i.e., may be inactive states for the pair of UEs) into a single IE)
(Eglip suggests the RRC inactive transition report is sent to the core network for indicating an update to the state of the UEs and in the inactive state the RAN maintains a context in order for the UE to resume operations, (see Para’s [0001], [0042-0049], & [0051-0052])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the remote UE and the relay UE which are paused as a pair based on suspended PC5 link between the remote UE and the relay UE as disclosed in Huang in view of Ly to be included as the first and second UEs indicated in the RRC inactive transition report sent to the core network as disclosed in the teachings of Eglip who discloses sending, to a core network, a report indicating that a first user equipment and a second user equipment are in the inactive state, resulting in the report indicating that the remote UE and the relay UE are paused as a pair, because the motivation lies in Eglip that the RRC inactive transition report is sent to the core network for indicating an update to the state of the UEs and in the inactive state the RAN maintains a context in order for the UE to resume operations.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Huang in view of Ly discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the report includes a cause value indicating a paused state of a relay link between the remote user equipment and the relay user equipment. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Eglip et al. US (2022/0304098).
Eglip discloses wherein the report includes a cause value indicating a paused state of a user equipment link (see Para [0052] i.e., method 400 builds an event for the RRC Inactive transition report…the method 400 may build the event by combining the UE IDs and their corresponding states into a single IE…the event information key may be associated with the value (i.e., “cause value”) of a UE of either connected or inactive (i.e., “paused state”))
(Eglip suggests the RRC inactive transition report is sent to the core network for indicating an update to the state of the UEs and in the inactive state the RAN maintains a context in order for the UE to resume operations, (see Para’s [0001], [0042-0049], & [0051-0052])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the relay UE which suspends the PC5 link between the remote UE and the relay UE as disclosed in Huang in view of Ly to be included as the UE indicated in the RRC inactive transition report with an associated event information key associated with a value of inactive as disclosed in the teachings of Eglip which results in the cause value indicating a paused state of a relay link between the remote user equipment and the relay user equipment, because the motivation lies in Eglip suggests that the RRC inactive transition report is sent to the core network for indicating an update to the state of the UEs and in the inactive state the RAN maintains a context in order for the UE to resume operations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382), and further in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: receive a radio resource control message to request a state transition for the remote user equipment from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Ozturk discloses receive a radio resource control message to request a state transition for the remote user equipment from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state (Ozturk, see Para [0093] i.e., While in RRC connected state 706…the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708))
(Ozturk suggests upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection (see Para’s [0093-0094])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the pausing or suspending of the relay link performed by the remote UE as disclosed in Huang in view of LY to be performed by transmitting from the remote UE to the serving base station, a radio resource control message to request a state transition for the remote UE from the radio resource control connected state to a radio resource control inactive state such as the RRC suspend request as disclosed in the teachings of Ozturk, because the motivation lies in Ozturk that upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection.
The combination of Huang in view of LY does not disclose the claim features of allocate a radio network temporary identifier, wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising the remote user equipment and the relay user equipment; and send the radio network temporary identifier to the relay user equipment and/or the remote user equipment. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Panteleev et al. US (2018/0206176).
Panteleev discloses allocate a radio network temporary identifier, (see Para’s [0034-0036], [0114] i.e., To enable reception of a single DCI grant by at least two UEs (the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106), the UEs may be configured with a common/paired RNTI, e.g. SL-RLY-RNTI (i.e., RNTI identifies the pair comprising the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106). The DCI may be scrambled with this SL-RLY-RNTI, & [0116] i.e., eNB may or may not configure the common/paired RNTI).
wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising the remote user equipment and the relay user equipment; (see Para’s [0034-0036], [0114] i.e., To enable reception of a single DCI grant by at least two UEs (the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106), the UEs may be configured with a common/paired RNTI, e.g. SL-RLY-RNTI (i.e., RNTI identifies the pair comprising the relay UE 104 and the remote UE 106). The DCI may be scrambled with this SL-RLY-RNTI, & [0116] i.e., eNB may or may not configure the common/paired RNTI).
and send the radio network temporary identifier to the relay user equipment and/or the remote user equipment, (see Para’s [0034-0036], [0114], & [0116] i.e., eNB may or may not configure the common/paired RNTI).
(Panteleev suggests the remote UE and the relay UE is configured with the common paired RNTI to enable reception of a single DCI grant by the UEs in order to efficiently perform the sidelink transmission and reception according to the DCI grant, (see Para [0114])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the relay UE apparatus which performs communication with the serving base station and the remote UE via the sidelink as disclosed in Huang in view of LY and further in view of Ozturk to receive the allocated radio network temporary identifier from a serving base station, wherein the radio network temporary identifier is to be used to identify a pair comprising the relay apparatus and the remote user equipment as disclosed in the teachings of Panteleev, because the motivation lies in Panteleev that the remote UE and the relay UE is configured with a common paired RNTI to enable reception of a single DCI grant by the UEs in order to efficiently perform the sidelink transmission and reception according to the DCI grant.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Huang in view of LY discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 including the remote UE pauses the relay link (LY, see Para’s [0066-0067] i.e., remote UE and relay UE suspend (i.e., “pause”) the PC5 link), but does not disclose wherein pausing the relay link comprises transmitting, to the relay user equipment, a request to pause the relay link. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382).
Ozturk wherein pausing a UEs link comprises transmitting, a request to pause the UEs link to the network, (Ozturk, see Para’s [0093-0094] i.e., While in RRC connected state 706…the UE can transmit an RRC suspend request to move from the RRC connected state 706 to an RRC inactive state 708 (i.e., pauses the UEs link). Upon receiving the RRC suspend request, the UE context of the UE can be stored in the last serving base station))
(Ozturk suggests upon receiving the RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in the serving base station in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection (see Para’s [0093-0094])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the pausing or suspending of the relay link performed by the remote UE and the relay UE as disclosed in Huang in view of LY to be performed by the remote UE transmitting an RRC suspend request to the network as disclosed in the teachings of Ozturk which results in transmitting, to the relay UE, a request for pause of the relay link, because the motivation lies in Ozturk that based on the received RRC suspend request from the UE, the UE context is stored in order for the UE to properly resume the RRC connection for preserving the connection in order to quickly resume the RRC connection.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US (2018/0160338) in view of LY et al. US (2022/0078693), and further in view of Ozturk et al. US (2024/0251382) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Park et al. US (2023/0040140).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Huang in view of LY, and further in view of Ozturk discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to start a timer responsive to the pause of the relay link, wherein the timer is for managing the paused relay link. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Park et al. US (2023/0040140).
Park discloses a relay UE to start a timer responsive to the pause of the relay link (see Para [0261] i.e., when the relay UE transmits information such as the suspend time described in 3) ii) to the remote UE before the PC5 connection is stopped, the relay UE uses this (i.e., suspend time “timer”) to resume the PC5 connection without additional indication when the timer expires & [0307]), wherein the timer is for managing the paused relay link (see Para [0261] & [0307]).
(Park suggests the relay UE uses the suspend timer to determine when to resume the PC5 connection with the remote UE for managing the suspended PC5 connection between the relay UE and the remote UE, (see Para [0261])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the relay UE which suspends and resumes the PC5 connection between the relay UE and the remote UE as disclosed in the teachings of Huang in view of LY, and further in view of Ozturk to start a timer responsive to the pause of the relay link, wherein the timer is for managing the paused relay link as performed by the relay UE as disclosed in Park, because the motivation lies in Park that the relay UE uses the suspend timer to determine when to resume the PC5 connection with the remote UE for managing the suspended PC5 connection between the relay UE and the remote UE.
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 ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights