DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 2/24/2026.
Claims 1-3,5-10,12-16 and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 1-3,5-10,12-16 and 18-20 are rejected.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 2/24/2026. Claims 1,8 and 14 were amended, claims 4,11 and 17 were canceled, and claims 1-3,5-10,12-16 and 18-20 remain pending.
Amendment to claim 1 in response to rejection under 35 USC § 101 has been considered. The amendment to the claims obviates previously raised rejection, as such this rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1,5-7,14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujishiro et al. (US Pub. 2023/0247695)(F1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, F1 teaches a terminal device [refer Fig. 2; 100][paragraph 0033], serving as a remote terminal and comprising:
a processor (i.e. controller)[refer Fig. 2; 130], a memory [paragraph 0037] and a transceiver [paragraph 0036];
the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor, through invoking and executing the computer program stored in the memory [paragraph 0037] and controlling the transceiver [paragraph 0036], is configured to determine a parameter used by the terminal device according to a network coverage status [paragraph 0139] and/or a radio resource control (RRC) state of the terminal device [paragraph 0139],
in response to the terminal device satisfying following conditions, determine that the terminal device uses a parameter broadcast in a system information block (SIB) [paragraph 0140]: the terminal device is within a relay coverage (a relay UE can transfer a SIB to a remote UE (i.e. within a relay coverage or reach))[paragraph 0153]; and the terminal device is in an RRC idle state or an RRC inactive state (when a connection between the RRC of a UE and RRC of a gNB does not exist, the UE can be in a RRC idle state)[paragraph 0053].
Regarding claims 5 and 18, F1 teaches in response to the terminal device being within the relay coverage, the SIB is relayed by a relay terminal (a relay UE can transfer a SIB to a remote UE (i.e. within a relay coverage or reach))[paragraph 0153].
Regarding claims 6 and 19, F1 teaches in response to the terminal device satisfying following conditions, determine that the terminal device uses a parameter configured by a dedicated RRC signaling (i.e. RRC signaling for configurations)[paragraph 0053]: the terminal device is within a network coverage and/or a relay coverage (if there is a connection to a gNB (i.e. within coverage) a UE can be within a RRC connected state configured by RRC signaling)[paragraph 0053]; and the terminal device is in an RRC connected state [paragraph 0053].
Regarding claims 7 and 20, F1 teaches in response to the terminal device being within the relay coverage, the dedicated RRC signaling is relayed by a relay terminal (PC5-RRC messages for configurations can be transmitted between a UE and a relay UE when there is a connection (i.e. within coverage))[paragraph 0075].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro et al. (US Pub. 2023/0247695)(F1 hereafter) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0084478)(L1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, F1 fails to disclose the processor is configured to, in response to the terminal device being outside a network coverage and outside a relay coverage, determine that the terminal device uses a preconfigured parameter.
L1 discloses that when a UE is out of coverage, a UE selects another UE as a synchronization reference, otherwise it uses pre-configured parameters [paragraph 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of F1 to incorporate the ability for a UE that is outside of a coverage area to use preconfigured parameters as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of synchronization when out of coverage [refer L1; paragraph 0067].
Regarding claims 3 and 16, F1 teaches the terminal device being outside the relay coverage comprises: a strength and/or quality of signal received by the terminal device from a relay terminal is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold (for U2U relay, a relay UE can detect whether an RSRP of another UE has fallen below a threshold)[paragraph 0175].
Claims 8-10,12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over F1 in view of Berggren et al. (US Pub. 2021/0136655)(B1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, F1 teaches a parameter configuration method, being applicable to a network device (i.e. gNB)[paragraph 0053] and comprising:
determining, by the network device, a parameter for a remote terminal [paragraph 0139] according to a network coverage status (a remote UE can be out of coverage of the gNB, therefore out of service)[paragraph 0058] and/or a radio resource control (RRC) state of the remote terminal (if there is no RRC connection between the UE and the gNB, a UE can be in an idle state)[paragraph 0053],
in response to the remote terminal satisfying following conditions, send the parameter through a system information block (SIB) for the remote terminal [paragraph 0140]: the remote terminal is within a relay coverage (a relay UE can transfer a SIB to a remote UE (i.e. within a relay coverage or reach))[paragraph 0153]; and the remote terminal is in an RRC idle state or an RRC inactive state (when a connection between the RRC of a UE and RRC of a gNB does not exist, the UE can be in a RRC idle state)[paragraph 0053].
However, F1 fails to disclose that the network device itself determines whether to send the parameter according to the network coverage status and/or RRC state of the remote terminal and determining to send the parameter through a system information block (SIB) for the remote terminal.
B1 discloses that a terminal can send an in-coverage indicator to a network indicating whether the terminal is in or out of coverage [paragraph 0069], the network is in control of whether to provide indirect or direct downlink communications are to be established [paragraph 0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of F1 for UEs to be in and out of coverage of a network and relay [refer F1; paragraph 0053] to incorporate the determination of a network node to control the establishment of communications with a UE based upon coverage as taught by B1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of controlling direct and indirect links based upon preferences and measurements from a terminal [refer B1; paragraph 0070].
Regarding claim 9, F1 teaches in response to the remote terminal being outside a network coverage and outside a relay coverage [paragraph 0114], determining the parameter for the remote terminal (for a relay UE selection process, a remote UE can compare information elements to determine candidates for relay, the information elements are configured by the gNB)[paragraph 0112].
However, F1 fails to disclose determining not to send the parameter for the remote terminal when the remote terminal is outside a network coverage and outside a relay coverage.
B1 discloses that a terminal can send an in-coverage indicator to a network indicating whether the terminal is in or out of coverage [paragraph 0069], the network is in control of whether to provide indirect or direct downlink communications are to be established [paragraph 0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of F1 for UEs to be in and out of coverage of a network and relay [refer F1; paragraph 0053] to incorporate the determination of a network node to control the establishment of communications with a UE based upon coverage as taught by B1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of controlling direct and indirect links based upon preferences and measurements from a terminal [refer B1; paragraph 0070].
Regarding claim 10, F1 teaches the remote terminal being outside the relay coverage comprises: a strength and/or quality of signal received by the remote terminal from a relay terminal is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold (for U2U relay, a relay UE can detect whether an RSRP of another UE has fallen below a threshold)[paragraph 0175].
Regarding claim 12, F1 teaches in response to the remote terminal being within the relay coverage, the SIB is relayed by a relay terminal (a relay UE can transfer a SIB to a remote UE (i.e. within a relay coverage or reach))[paragraph 0153].
Regarding claim 13, F1 in view of B1 teaches in response to the remote terminal satisfying following conditions, send the parameter through a dedicated RRC signaling for the remote terminal (i.e. RRC signaling for configurations)[paragraph 0053]: the remote terminal is within a network coverage and/or a relay coverage (if there is a connection to a gNB (i.e. within coverage) a UE can be within a RRC connected state configured by RRC signaling)[paragraph 0053]; and, the remote terminal is in an RRC connected state [paragraph 0053].
However, F1 fails to disclose determining to send the parameter through a dedicated RRC signaling for the remote terminal.
B1 discloses that a terminal can send an in-coverage indicator to a network indicating whether the terminal is in or out of coverage [paragraph 0069], the network is in control of whether to provide indirect or direct downlink communications are to be established [paragraph 0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of F1 for UEs to be in and out of coverage of a network and relay [refer F1; paragraph 0053] to incorporate the determination of a network node to control the establishment of communications with a UE based upon coverage as taught by B1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of controlling direct and indirect links based upon preferences and measurements from a terminal [refer B1; paragraph 0070].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1,8 and 14, applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach the claim limitations, namely, “determining a parameter used by the remote terminal according to the network-coverage status and/or RRC state” and “determining that the remote terminal uses the parameter broadcast in the SIB based on the ‘satisfaction of the claimed conditions’,” as was previously present in now cancelled claims 4,11 and 17 respectively.
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, a parameter can be seen as any numerical or measurable factor used in an operation and to determine a parameter used by a remote terminal according to network coverage status and/or RRC state can be seen in view of the teachings of F1, in which a remote UE (i.e. claimed terminal) may detect the movement to the area within coverage, based on a received power (RSRP) of a reference signal received from the cellular communication network that has exceeded a threshold (i.e. determining a “parameter). The remote UE may detect the movement to the area within the coverage, based on reception of a synchronization signal from the cellular communication network. Alternatively, the remote UE can detect that it has transitioned from the RRC idle state or the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state [refer F1; paragraph 0139]. Because the claimed “parameter” does not require any specific definition to what it comprises of, it can be viewed as simply any type of information, requirements or otherwise variable for network connection to a network device via a relay. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, in response to the arguments that the applied references fails to disclose the determining that the remote terminal uses the parameter broadcast in the SIB based on the satisfaction of the claimed conditions, examiner respectively disagrees. F1 discloses that a UE (i.e. the terminal device) uses information (i.e. the claimed parameter) from a received system information block (SIB) by a gNB [paragraph 0140] that it would have to be in connection to with a relay UE [refer Fig. 13; S205] to receive. The remote terminal otherwise would not be able to connect to a gNB (i.e. the claimed network device) if it was not within a relay coverage to connect to otherwise connect to the gNB [refer Fig. 13; S209] and receive any information, such as an SIB, sent from the gNB [paragraph 0153]. Furthermore, the remote UE (i.e. the claimed terminal device) can be defined as in an RRC idle state or an RRC inactive state in a case when a connection between the RRC of a UE and RRC of a gNB does not exist, the UE can be in a RRC idle state and when it is suspended, it is in an inactive state [paragraph 0053]. When a remote UE establishes network connection to a gNB and then receive configurations to establish communications with the gNB via a remote UE, as taught by F1, then it would initially have to be within a coverage to establish such connections and be in a state that is otherwise not active with the gNB.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights