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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 31 January 2024 and 15 April 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/288,013 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 10-13 of the instant application are in the same scope as claims 10 and 12 of 18/288,013.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. US 2020/0008117 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yang”) in view of 3GPP “Introduction of DL RRC Segmentation” (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP”). Note Yang and 3GPP were cited by the applicant in the IDS received 15 April 2025.
As to claim 1, Yang teaches a method performed by a remote user equipment (¶¶185 and 187; figure 8), the method comprising:
receiving an indication, which is transmitted by a relay user equipment in a case that cell reselection occurs in the relay user equipment (¶¶185 and 201-205; figure 8: second (remote) terminal device receives handover indication from first (relay) terminal indicating handover is occurring at the first (relay) terminal); and
in response to receiving the indication, considering cell reselection occurs and performing actions, wherein
the actions are actions for a case where the remote user equipment considers the cell reselection occurs (¶207; figure 8: based on receiving the handover indication, second (remote) terminal performs the handover scheme).
Although Yang teaches “A method…reselection occurs,” Yang does not explicitly disclose “the actions…is running”.
However, 3GPP teaches the actions include stopping a timer T390 for all access categories in a case the timer T390 is running (page 64: if cell reselection occurs while T390 is running, the terminal stops T390 for all access categories).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Yang by including “the actions…is running” as taught by 3GPP because it provides Yang’s method with the enhanced capability of performing UE operations according to the standard (3GPP, page 64).
As to claim 10, Yang teaches a remote user equipment (¶¶185, 187, and 316; figures 8 and 16) comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions,
wherein the instructions, when run by the processor, cause the remote user equipment to (¶¶316-321; figure 16):
receive an indication, which is transmitted by a relay user equipment in a case that cell reselection occurs in the relay user equipment (¶¶185 and 201-205; figure 8: second (remote) terminal device receives handover indication from first (relay) terminal indicating handover is occurring at the first (relay) terminal); and
in response to receiving the indication, considering cell reselection occurs and performing actions, wherein
the actions are actions for a case where the remote user equipment considers the cell reselection occurs (¶207; figure 8: based on receiving the handover indication, second (remote) terminal performs the handover scheme).
Although Yang teaches “A remote…reselection occurs,” Yang does not explicitly disclose “the actions…is running”.
However, 3GPP teaches the actions include stopping a timer T390 for all access categories in a case the timer T390 is running (page 64: if cell reselection occurs while T390 is running, the terminal stops T390 for all access categories).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Yang by including “the actions…is running” as taught by 3GPP because it provides Yang’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of performing UE operations according to the standard (3GPP, page 64).
As to claim 11, Yang in view of 3GPP teaches the remote user equipment according to claim 10.
3GPP further teaches the actions further include actions which are performed upon going to RRC_IDLE with release cause 'RRC connection failure' in a case that a timer T302 is running (page 64: UE enters RRC_IDLE with release cause ‘RRC Resume failure’ when reselection occurs while T302 is running).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Yang in view of 3GPP by including “the actions…is running” as further taught by 3GPP for the same rationale as set forth in claim 10 (3GPP, page 64).
As to claim 12, Yang teaches a relay user equipment (¶¶185, 187, and 310; figures 8 and 15) comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions,
wherein the instructions, when run by the processor, cause the remote user equipment to (¶¶310-315; figure 15):
transmit, to a remote user equipment, an indication, in a case that cell reselection occurs in the relay user equipment (¶¶185 and 201-205; figure 8: second (remote) terminal device receives handover indication from first (relay) terminal indicating handover is occurring at the first (relay) terminal); and
the indication causes the remote user equipment to consider cell reselection occurs and to perform actions,
the actions are actions for a case where the remote user equipment considers the cell reselection occurs (¶207; figure 8: based on receiving the handover indication, second (remote) terminal performs the handover scheme).
Although Yang teaches “A relay…reselection occurs,” Yang does not explicitly disclose “the actions…is running”.
However, 3GPP teaches the actions include stopping a timer T390 for all access categories in a case the timer T390 is running (page 64: if cell reselection occurs while T390 is running, the terminal stops T390 for all access categories).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Yang by including “the actions…is running” as taught by 3GPP because it provides Yang’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of performing UE operations according to the standard (3GPP, page 64).
As to claim 13, Yang in view of 3GPP teaches the remote user equipment according to claim 12.
3GPP further teaches the actions further include actions which are performed upon going to RRC_IDLE with release cause 'RRC connection failure' in a case that a timer T302 is running (page 64: UE enters RRC_IDLE with release cause ‘RRC Resume failure’ when reselection occurs while T302 is running).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Yang in view of 3GPP by including “the actions…is running” as further taught by 3GPP for the same rationale as set forth in claim 12 (3GPP, page 64).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Back et al. US 2024/0056951 A1 – Method and Apparatus for Access Control in Wireless Communication System
Yang US 2025/0039754 A1 – Access Control Method and Apparatus
3GPP 38.311 V16.4.1 Release 16
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469