Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/416,437

RRC CONNECTION METHOD AND DEVICE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 18, 2024
Examiner
JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE
Art Unit
2468
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
659 granted / 762 resolved
+28.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+5.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
787
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 762 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Objections Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: abbreviations should be in parentheses. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 12-13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US 20200178343. Regarding claim 12, A sidelink SL UE (UE, Figure 26, element 2620), comprising a processor (element 2621), a memory (element 2622), and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor, implements: in a case that a relay terminal Relay UE is in a radio resource control idle state RRC_IDLE or a radio resource control inactive state RRC_INACTIVE (the eRelay-UE is in an ECM-IDLE state, para. 0810), determining, by the Relay UE, whether a first condition is satisfied; and triggering, by the Relay UE, an RRC connection establishment or RRC connection recovery procedure in a case that the Relay UE satisfies the first condition (a RRC connection request by an eRelay UE internal behavior from the eRelay-UE itself and a RRC connection request by the connection activation from the eRemote-UE are triggered, the eRelay-UE may initiate the RRC connection request to the eNB, para. 0820); wherein the first condition comprises one or more of the following: the Relay UE determines to provide a relay service for one or more remote terminals Remote UEs; and the Relay UE receives one or more first messages from one or more Remote UEs, wherein each of the first messages carries a first cause value cause value of each of the Remote UEs for requesting RRC connection recovery or RRC connection establishment (when the eRemote UE performs a RRC connection request procedure through the eRelay UE, if a RRC connection request procedure of the eRelay UE should be performed at a time at which the eRelay UE is in an idle state, if the eRemote UE performs the RRC connection with the network via the eRelay UE, the eRelay UE may include the RRC establishment cause of the relay UE (a cause why the relay UE requests RRC connection/establishment) in a RRC connection request message and send it to the eNB, para. 0810-0811). Regarding claim 13, The sidelink SL UE according to claim 12, wherein in a case that the Relay UE is in RRC_IDLE, the triggering, by the Relay UE, an RRC connection establishment procedure is determined by a non-access stratum NAS of the Relay UE; and in a case that the Relay UE is in RRC_INACTIVE, the triggering, by the Relay UE, an RRC connection recovery procedure is determined by an access stratum AS of the Relay UE (when the eRemote UE performs a RRC connection request procedure through the eRelay UE, if a RRC connection request procedure of the eRelay UE should be performed at a time at which the eRelay UE is in an idle state, if the eRemote UE performs the RRC connection with the network via the eRelay UE, the eRelay UE may include the RRC establishment cause of the relay UE (a cause why the relay UE requests RRC connection/establishment) in a RRC connection request message and send it to the eNB, para. 0810-0811). Claims 1-2 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Leng et al. US 20230397265. Regarding claim 14, The sidelink SL UE according to claim 12, Kim does not disclose wherein when the program or instructions are executed by a processor, further implements: determining, by the AS of the Relay UE, target information, wherein the target information comprises a second cause value and/or a second access category AC; and sending, by the AS of the Relay UE, first indication information to the NAS of the Relay UE, and determining, by the NAS of the Relay UE, the target information based on the first indication information, wherein the target information comprises at least one of the second cause value, the second AC, and trigger of a NAS signaling procedure. Leng discloses a method for establishing relay connection, which may include that: a relay UE sends a first connection establishment request message to a network device, the first connection establishment request message carries a connection establishment cause value, and the first connection establishment request message is configured to request the establishment of a connection between the relay UE and the network device, para. 0004. Leng discloses a Non Access Stratum (NAS) of the UE may obtain the RRC establishment cause according to the mapping of an access identifier and an access category while initiating the call, the RRC establishment cause is encoded in the RRCSetupRequest message by the RRC layer and sent to the network device, para. 0031. Leng discloses the connection establishment cause value may be sent to the relay UE by the remote UE, the connection establishment cause value may be sent to an Access Stratum (AS) entity of the relay UE by the remote UE, the connection establishment cause value is determined by the AS entity of the relay UE according to a protocol, the connection establishment cause value corresponds to a relay manner of the relay UE, a relay based on layer 2 corresponds to a connection establishment cause value of 1, and a relay based on layer 3 corresponds to a connection establishment cause value of 2, the connection establishment cause value is sent to an NAS entity of the relay UE by the remote UE, and then sent to the AS entity of the relay UE by the NAS entity or the connection establishment cause value is determined by the NAS entity of the relay UE according to the protocol, para. 0040. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kim to include Leng’s relay connection method and establishment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for higher spectral efficiency and lower transmission time delay, para, 0021. Claim 3 is rejected under the same rationale. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-11,15-19 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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. /MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 18, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604345
User Equipment Configuration For Determining Channel Access Priority Class
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593273
CROSS-RADIO CONFIGURATION FOR POSITIONING AND SENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580695
FEEDBACK INFORMATION TRANSMITTING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581384
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NETWORK SLICE PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574987
BEAM FAILURE RECOVERY METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+5.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 762 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month