DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 6 February 2024.
Claims 1-14 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2023/0319945) in view of Peng et al. (US Pub. 2022/0330056).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses:
“A method performed by a network-controlled repeater (NCR) node in a communication system, the method comprising:”
Guo discloses a relay terminal operating between a communication terminal and an access network device, corresponding to a network-controlled repeater node (Guo, ¶[0043], ¶[0045]).
“performing, by a forward (Fwd) of the NCR node (NCR-Fwd), signal forwarding between a terminal and a base station based on first control information received from the base station;”
Guo discloses:
“the relay terminal directly sends the communication message to the connected access network device… the relay terminal is a device used for transparent transmission… realized by using the relay terminal as a medium” (Guo, ¶[0062]).
Guo further discloses:
“the access network device sends a first control message to the relay terminal… used for instructing the relay terminal” (Guo, ¶[0081]–[0082]).
“receiving, by a mobile termination (MT) of the NCR node (NCR-MT), from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) release message;”
Guo discloses:
“the access network device sends a wireless connection releasing message or a wireless connection suspension message to the relay terminal” (Guo, ¶[0074]–[0076]).
“performing, by the NCR-MT, cell reselection in an RRC inactive state based on the RRC release message including information on a suspend configuration;”
Guo discloses:
“the relay terminal enters a CM-idle state or RRC idle/inactive state” (Guo, ¶[0088]–[0093]).
and
“the relay terminal enters an idle state or an inactive state” (Guo, ¶[0100]–[0101]).
“and indicating, by the NCR-MT, to the NCR-Fwd, to cease the signal forwarding, in case that the NCR-MT reselects a cell other than a last serving cell of the base station.”
Guo further discloses:
“the relay terminal leaves the connection state with the access network device based on the received first control message” (Guo, ¶[0085]).
Guo does not specifically disclose:
performing cell reselection in an RRC inactive state based on suspend configuration included in the RRC release message, and
indicating to cease forwarding specifically in response to reselection of a cell other than a last serving cell.
However, Peng from an analogous discloses RRC release with suspend configuration and transition to RRC inactive:
“The first relay terminal sends, to the at least one remote terminal, a message for suspending the unicast connection, where the message includes first indication information…” (Peng, ¶[0205]).
Peng further discloses cell reselection:
“The first relay terminal performs cell reselection.” (Peng, ¶[0213]).
These teachings show that, following suspension/release, the terminal operates in a state in which mobility (cell reselection) is performed and communication context associated with the previous serving cell is no longer maintained for active communication.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Guo to include the suspend-based cell reselection behavior of Peng, because both references relate to wireless communication systems employing relay nodes and RRC state management, and such modification would ensure proper mobility handling when a relay transitions out of a connected state.
Furthermore, when the relay terminal reselects a cell other than the last serving cell, the prior forwarding configuration associated with the previous cell would no longer be valid. It would therefore have been obvious to cease forwarding associated with the prior cell in response to such reselection in order to prevent misrouting of data and to ensure that forwarding aligns with the newly selected serving cell.
Regarding claim 2, Guo further discloses further comprising:... transitioning to an RRC idle state from an RRC connected state, as evidenced by:
“the access network device sends a wireless connection releasing message…” (Guo, ¶[0074]–[0076])and“the relay terminal enters a CM-idle state or RRC idle/inactive state” (Guo, ¶[0088]–[0093])
Guo does not disclose:
“the RRC release message does not include the information on the suspend configuration”, and
“indicating… to cease the signal forwarding… based on the NCR-MT transitioning to the RRC idle state”
Peng further discloses:
“indicating… to cease the signal forwarding” (via suspension of communication), as evidenced by:
“903. The first relay terminal sends… a message for suspending the unicast connection…” (Peng, ¶[0205])
Thus, it would have been obvious to cease forwarding based on transition to the RRC idle state, since Peng teaches suspension of communication and Guo teaches transition to idle upon release.
Regarding claim 3, Guo does not specifically disclose further comprising:transmitting, by the NCR-MT, to a base station associated with the cell, an RRC resume request message based on the cell being reselected; andreceiving, by the NCR-MT, from the base station associated with the cell, an RRC resume message as a response to the RRC resume request message.
However, Peng discloses these limitations:
“The first relay terminal sends… a resume indication (namely, the third indication information)…” (Peng, ¶[0304])
Thus, it would have been obvious to perform resume request and response signaling upon reselection, since Peng teaches resume indication signaling for re-establishing communication.
Regarding claim 4, Guo does not specifically disclose:
wherein the RRC resume request message includes information indicating that the NCR node requests a connection to the base station associated with the cell.
However, Peng discloses these limitations:
“a resume indication (namely, the third indication information)” (Peng, ¶[0304])
Thus, it would have been obvious to include connection request information in the resume request message.
Regarding claim 7, Guo further discloses further comprising:forwarding, by the NCR-Fwd, a signal associated with the last serving cell based on the first control information and the signal associated with the cell based on the second control information.
“the relay terminal directly sends the communication message…” (Guo, ¶[0062])
Regarding claim 8, Guo discloses a network-controlled repeater (NCR) node in a communication system, the NCR node comprising:a transceiver (Fig. 12, transmitter 1203, receiver 1202); anda controller (Fig. 12, processor 1201) configured to substantially perform the complimentary functions of the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claims 9-11 and 14 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 2-4 and 7, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claims 5–6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. in view of Luo et al.
Regarding claim 5, Guo further discloses:
“receiving… control information… to forward a signal”, as evidenced by:
“the access network device sends a first control message… used for instructing the relay terminal” (Guo, ¶[0081]–[0082])
Guo does not specifically disclose:
“second control information… associated with the cell”, and
“applying… the second control information”
However, Luo discloses:
control information used to configure forwarding, as evidenced by:
“Control path 303 carries control signals to configure relay node 300…” (Luo, ¶[0072])
Thus, it would have been obvious to apply second control information associated with a reselected cell for forwarding, since Luo teaches configuration of forwarding via control messages.
Regarding claim 6, Guo does not specifically disclose:
wherein the second control information includes at least one of information on a beam used by the signal forwarding associated with the last serving cell, information on a frequency of the cell, or information on subcarrier spacing.
However, Luo further discloses these limitations:
“The control message would include… beam direction on the service side…” (Luo, ¶[0072])
Thus, it would have been obvious to include frequency and subcarrier spacing as part of control information, since such parameters are standard in wireless communication systems.
Claims 12-13 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 5-6, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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 on (571) 272-0734. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights