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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to amendment filed on 08/11/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 18, 20, 21, 23 and 29 – 30 are amended.
Claims 1 – 30 are pending.
In response to applicant’s amendment in claim 23, examiner has withdrawn claim objection mentioned in previous office action.
In response to applicant’s amendment in claim 10, examiner has withdrawn 112(b) rejection for claim 10 – 12 mentioned in previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/11/2026 with respect to claims 1 – 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant amended the independent claim 1. The amendments have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, a new ground of rejection has been made in view of previously cited prior arts VIVO (Title, Adaptation Layer for L2 SL Relay), WANG (US 2023/0403626 A1) and a new prior art Kuo (US 2022/0159753 A1).
Applicant argued on page 14: middle paragraph of the remark, that “Vivo, Wang, Back, and Liu-alone or in any combination-do not teach or suggest all of the features of amended independent claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully agrees with applicant’s arguments. The new prior art Kuo teaches in ¶ [0189], when receiving the adaptation layer PDU from gNB, the relay UE would first determine the remote UE according to the local UE ID and then select a SL RLC bearer to forward the corresponding adaptation layer SDU to the remote UE. Here, the remote UE is a second UE; therefore, a sidelink bearer is configured between the relay/ first UE and the second UE based on local identifier associated with the second UE. SL RLC is Sidelink (SL) Radio Link Control (RLC); therefore, the sidelink bearer comprising a sidelink radio link control bearer. Accordingly, Kuo teaches the new limitation and the combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1.
Applicant argued on page 12: first paragraph of the remark, regarding claim 20 and page 14: last paragraph of the remark, regarding claim 29.
Claims 20 and 29 are allowed; therefore, applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argued on page 18: first paragraph of the remark, “Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 10, 11, 13-15, 26, and 30 each depend from one of independent claims 1, 20, and 29 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claims 1, 20, and 29 are allowable”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments for claims 4-6, 10, 11, and 13-15. Since the combination of NGUYEN and WU teaches all limitations of the currently amended independent claim 1; therefore, claim 1 is not allowable, therefore, the dependent claims 4-6, 10, 11, 13-15 are not patentable by virtue of their dependency from claim 1. Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not proper. Claims 26 and 30 are allowable as the independent claims 20 and 29 are allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with all the arguments filed by the applicant. All arguments and remarks are replied to in detail in the rejection section below.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 25 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites in line 4, “a local identifier”. This recitation raises an ambiguity issue as the linking claim 1 recites “a local identifier”; it should read as “the local identifier” in claim 18.
Claim 25 recites in line 4, “a generated random local identifier”. This recitation raises an ambiguity issue as the linking claim 20 recites “a generated random local identifier”; it should read as “the generated random local identifier” in claim 25.
Claim 27 recites in line 3, “a random generated local identifier”. It should read as “the generated random local identifier” to keep the consistency of the language and overcome ambiguity issue.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites in line 4, “updating a local identifier ….”. The claim further recites in second last line, "transmitting to the second UE, or receiving, from the second UE, the updated local identifier …”. If the first UE updates the local Identifier, how come it receives the updated local identifier from the second UE. Therefore, the claim is unclear. The uncertainty of this limitation in the claim makes the claim indefinite. Claim 19 depends on claim 18; therefore, same rational applies to it. Accordingly, claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 6, 10 – 11 and 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIVO (Title, Adaptation Layer for L2 SL Relay; 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #115 electronic, R2- 2107451, 6 August 2021) (cited in IDS) in view of WANG (US 2023/0403626 A1) further in view of Kuo (US 2022/0159753 A1) (relied on filing date of US provisional application no. 63/114,158 that properly support citation).
(Currently amended) Regarding claim 1, VIVO teaches a method (Title, Adaptation Layer for L2 SL Relay) for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Fig.3 and Pg.5: last para, Local remote UE ID assigned by the serving gNB of the relay UE. Here, the Relay UE is a first UE), comprising:
transmitting, to a base station, a first uplink message comprising one or both (Due to alternative language “one or both” in the claim, examiner addresses one limitation only) of a protocol layer source identifier associated with a second UE or a request for a local identifier associated with the second UE (Pg.5: last para, the relay UE reports the requirement of local remote UE ID assignment for a new remote UE arrival to gNB. Here, the new remote UE is a second UE; therefore, the requirement of local remote UE ID assignment is a request for a local identifier associated with the second UE. Since the relay UE reports to the gNB; therefore, it is a uplink message transmitted by the first UE to the base station);
receiving, from the base station, a first downlink message comprising a downlink signal radio bearer message, and the downlink signal radio bearer message including one or both of the protocol layer source identifier associated with the second UE or the local identifier associated with the second UE in a downlink adaptation layer header of the downlink signal radio bearer message (Pg.6: step 4, The gNB uses adaptation header with the local remote UE ID and E2E RB ID 0 to carry DL E2E SRB0 message of remote UE via the relay UE. The relay UE identifies the right remote UE by the local remote UE ID. Here, the local remote UE ID is transmitted to the relay UE via DL E2E SRB0 message/ downlink signal radio bearer message. Further, the adaptation header is used to carry DL E2E SRB0 message; therefore, the local identifier of the second UE is in a downlink adaptation layer header of the downlink signal radio bearer message);
transmitting, to the second UE, the local identifier associated with the second UE based at least in part on the received first downlink message (as mentioned in step 4, the local remote UE ID is transmitted to the remote UE via the relay UE; therefore, the relay UE/ first UE transmits to the second UE the local identifier associated with the second UE based at least in part on the received first downlink message).
VIVO discloses “Adaptation Layer for L2 SL Relay”; but
VIVO does not specifically teach
transmitting, to the second UE, in a sidelink adaptation layer header of a sidelink message, the local identifier associated with the second UE.
However, WANG teaches a method (Title, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RELAY COMMUNICATION), comprising:
transmitting, to the second UE, in a sidelink adaptation layer header of a sidelink message, the local identifier associated with the second UE ([0142], an identity (ID) of a remote UE is known by a gNB and a relay UE (e.g., a remote UE ID or a local ID); [0144] – [0146], one or more of the following information contents are carried in an adaptation layer header for a UE-to-UE relay: an identity of a remote UE; and an identity of an end-to-end remote UE sidelink radio bearer. Here, the adaptation layer header for a UE-to-UE relay is a sidelink adaptation layer header of a sidelink message; therefore, the remote UE ID or a local ID (i.e. local identifier associated with the second UE) is carried/ transmitted in the sidelink adaptation layer header of a sidelink message from the relay UE/ first UE to the remote UE/ second UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VIVO as mentioned above and further incorporate the teaching of WANG. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for relay communication which enables a gNB and/or a UE (e.g., a relay UE, a remote UE, etc.) to configure and/or reconfigure a UE ID for a concerned remote UE. The UE ID is used in an adaptation layer. A local ID is configured/reconfigured to the remote UE is applied for a short time period, which is beneficial to reduce the risk of UE ID disclosure (WANG, Abstract and [0149]).
The combination of VIVO and WANG does not specifically teach
configuring a sidelink bearer associated with a sidelink between the first UE and the second UE based at least in part on the local identifier associated with the second UE, the sidelink bearer comprising a sidelink radio link control bearer.
However, Kuo teaches (Title, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR UU RADIO BEARER TO PC5 RADIO LINK CONTROL (RLC) BEARER MAPPING IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM)
configuring a sidelink bearer associated with a sidelink between the first UE and the second UE based at least in part on the local identifier associated with the second UE, the sidelink bearer comprising a sidelink radio link control bearer ([0189], When receiving the adaptation layer PDU from gNB, the relay UE would first determine the remote UE according to the local UE ID and then select a SL RLC bearer to forward the corresponding adaptation layer SDU to the remote UE. Here, the remote UE is a second UE; therefore, a sidelink bearer is configured between the relay/ first UE and the second UE based on local identifier associated with the second UE. SL RLC is Sidelink (SL) Radio Link Control (RLC); therefore, the sidelink bearer comprising a sidelink radio link control bearer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified combination of VIVO and WANG as mentioned above and further incorporate the teaching of Kuo. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method and apparatus for UU radio bearer to PC5 RLC bearer mapping in a wireless communication system (Kuo, [0002]).
(Original) Regarding claim 2, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
VIVO further teaches
receiving, from the base station, a second downlink message comprising an indication of a mapping between the protocol layer source identifier associated with the second UE and the local identifier associated with the second UE (Fig.3: step 2, The gNB configures a local remote UE ID mapped to the remote UE L2 ID to the relay UE. Here, the remote UE L2 ID is a protocol layer source identifier of the remote UE/ second UE; Fig.3: Solution 1, shows the communication between the relay UE and the gNB. Since, the mapping is done by the gNB; therefore, the DL message provides the indication of the mapping…), wherein the second downlink message comprises a radio resource control reconfiguration (Fig.3: Solution 1, RRC Reconfig., e.g. Local UE ID to remote L2 ID); and
transmitting, to the base station, a second uplink message based at least in part on the received second downlink message, the second uplink message comprising a radio resource control reconfiguration complete (Fig.3: step 2, the relay UE feeds back complete message. As shown Fig.3, , RRC Reconfig. between the relay UE and the gNB; therefore, the relay UE/ first UE transmits a second uplink message comprising a RRC reconfiguration complete based at least in part on the received second downlink message of a mapping between….).
(Original) Regarding claim 4, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above.
VIVO further teaches
wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration complete comprises the local identifier associated with the second UE in an uplink adaptation layer header of the radio resource control reconfiguration complete (Pg.6: Step 2, the relay UE feeds back complete message. Step 3, The relay UE uses adaptation header with the local remote UE ID and E2E RB ID 0 to carry UL E2E SRB0 message of the remote UE to the gNB).
(Currently amended) Regarding claim 5, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
VIVO further teaches
including, in an uplink adaptation layer header of the first uplink message, an indication of the local identifier associated with the second UE, the first uplink message comprising an uplink signal radio bearer message associated with the second UE (Pg.6: step 3, The relay UE uses adaptation header with the local remote UE ID and E2E RB ID 0 to carry UL E2E SRB0 message of the remote UE to the gNB).
(Original) Regarding claim 6, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
VIVO further teaches wherein:
the downlink adaptation layer header of the first downlink message comprises an indication of a mapping between the protocol layer source identifier associated with the second UE and the local identifier associated with the second UE (Pg.6: Step 2, The gNB configures a local remote UE ID mapped to the remote UE L2 ID to the relay UE; Step 3, The relay UE uses adaptation header with the local remote UE ID and E2E RB ID 0 to carry UL E2E SRB0 message of the remote UE to the gNB; Step 4, The gNB uses adaptation header with the local remote UE ID and E2E RB ID 0 to carry DL E2E SRB0 message of remote UE via the relay UE. Here, the remote UE L2 ID is a protocol layer source identifier of the remote UE/ second UE and the local remote UE ID is transmitted via downlink signal radio bearer message because of the mapping between the protocol layer source identifier associated with the second UE and the local identifier associated with the second UE; therefore, it is obvious that the downlink adaptation layer header of the first downlink message comprises an indication of a mapping….), and
the downlink adaptation layer header of the first downlink message includes or excludes the local identifier associated with the second UE (as mentioned above, the adaptation header with the local remote UE ID; therefore, the downlink adaptation layer header of the first downlink message includes the local identifier associated with the second UE).
(Currently amended) Regarding claim 10, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
VIVO further teaches
determining a mapping between the local identifier associated with the second UE and the protocol layer source identifier associated with the second UE based at least in part on one or both of the received subsequent sidelink message or the first uplink message (Fig.3: step 2, The gNB configures a local remote UE ID mapped to the remote UE L2 ID to the relay UE. Here, the remote UE L2 ID is a protocol layer source identifier of the remote UE/ second UE; Fig.3: Solution 1, shows the communication between the relay UE and the gNB. Since, the mapping is configured by the gNB and the gNB provides the indication of the mapping to the relay UE; therefore, it is obvious that the mapping is determined by the received message).
VIVO does not specifically teach
receiving, from the second UE, a subsequent sidelink message comprising an indication of the local identifier associated with the second UE included in a sidelink adaptation layer header of the subsequent sidelink message.
However, WANG teaches
receiving, from the second UE, a subsequent sidelink message comprising an indication of the local identifier associated with the second UE included in a sidelink adaptation layer header of the subsequent sidelink message ([0142] an identity (ID) of a remote UE known by a gNB and a relay UE (e.g., a remote UE ID or a local ID); [0144] – [0146], one or more of the following information contents are carried in an adaptation layer header for a UE-to-UE relay: an identity of a remote UE; and an identity of an end-to-end remote UE sidelink radio bearer. Here, the UE-to-UE relay is considered as a sidelink between the first UE and the second UE. Since, the local identifier of the remote UE is in the sidelink communication between the first UE and the second UE; therefore, a sidelink message comprising an indication of the local identifier associated with the second UE is received from the remote/ second UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified combination of VIVO and WANG as mentioned in claim 1 and further incorporate the teaching of WANG. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for relay communication which enables a gNB and/or a UE (e.g., a relay UE, a remote UE, etc.) to configure and/or reconfigure a UE ID for a concerned remote UE. The UE ID is used in an adaptation layer. A local ID is configured/reconfigured to the remote UE is applied for a short time period, which is beneficial to reduce the risk of UE ID disclosure (WANG, Abstract and [0149]).
(Original) Regarding claim 11, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above.
VIVO further teaches
storing the determined mapping between the local identifier associated with the second UE and the protocol layer source identifier associated with the second UE (Fig.3: step 2, The gNB configures a local remote UE ID mapped to the remote UE L2 ID to the relay UE and the relay UE feeds back complete message. Here, the relay UR feeds back the complete message after receiving the determined mapping; therefore, it is obvious to consider that the first UE stores the determined mapping).
(Original) Regarding claim 13, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
VIVO further teaches
receiving, from the base station, a second downlink message comprising one or both (Due to alternative language “one or both” in the claim, examiner addresses one limitation only) of a random generated local identifier associated with the second UE or the local identifier associated with the second UE (Pg.6: Fig.3: solution 1, RRC reconfiguration, e.g. local UE ID to remote L2 ID. Here, signal from gNB to relay UE is a second downlink message comprising local identifier associated with the second UE), the second downlink message comprising a radio resource control reconfiguration (as shown in Fig. 3, the second downlink message is a RRC reconfiguration).
(Original) Regarding claim 14, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
VIVO further teaches
receiving, from the second UE, a sidelink message comprising an indication of the local identifier associated with the second UE, the sidelink message comprising a PC5 radio resource control message (Pg.6: step 1, After the relay UE and the remote UE complete PC5 RRC connection establishment for relaying, the relay UE reports remote UE info to its serving gNB, e.g. Layer-2 ID of remote UE via SL UE Information. Here, the Layer-2 ID of remote UE is the local identifier associated with the second UE; therefore, the first UE receives from the second UE a sidelink message comprising an indication of the local identifier associated with the second UE)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIVO, WANG and Kuo in view of BACK et al. (BACK hereinafter referred to BACK) (US 2024/0340731 A1) (relied on filing date of US provisional application no. 63/234,263 that properly supports all citation).
(Original) Regarding claim 15, combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
VIVO does not specifically teach
wherein receiving, from the base station, the first downlink message is based at least in part on the first UE operating in a connected mode, the first downlink message comprising a handover message.
However, BACK teaches (Title, OPERATION METHOD RELATED TO HANDOVER IN SIDELINK RELAY IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM),
wherein receiving, from the base station, the first downlink message is based at least in part on the first UE operating in a connected mode (Fig.16 and [0200], the remote UE and the relay UE are in a state in which a PC5 connection is established; Due to HO of the relay UE, only when only the relay UE is in the RRC-CONNECTED state, only the relay UE is considered), the first downlink message comprising a handover message (Fig.16 and [0206], In operation S1604, the serving gNB that determines HO of the relay UE and notifies the relay UE that HO is performed. Here, the serving gNB to the relay UE HO notification is in a downlink message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified combination of VIVO, WANG and Kuo as mentioned in claim 1 and further incorporate the teaching of BACK. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a handover-related operation method of a remote UE in a wireless communication system when a serving gNB of the remote UE in sidelink and a gNB related to a selected relay UE are different from each other, in which a target gNB checks/identifies/specifies which UE a selected relay UE is through ID information and performs an RRC reconfiguration procedure with the relay UE (BACK, Abstract, [0028] and [0044]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7 – 9, 12 and 16 – 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 20 – 30 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWNAK ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8009. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on 571-272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information Regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROWNAK ISLAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
