DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 7/1/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 7/1/2026. Claims 1,8, and 14 were amended and claims 1-3,5-10,12-16 and 18-20 remain pending.
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 8-10,12 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 8 and its dependents by virtue of dependency, the limitation “in response to the remote terminal having acquired a parameter broadcast in a system information block (SIB) and the remote terminal satisfying at least one of the following conditions, determining to send the parameter through the SIB for the remote terminal” is indefinite because the limitations are confusing and appears to require that the remote terminal is to have received the parameter via a SIB before determining to send that same parameter via the SIB is to be sent the remote terminal. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the remote terminal using the parameter received in the broadcasted SIB if the remote device satisfied conditions as interpreted in claims 1 and 14.
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.
Claims 1,5-7,14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro et al. (US Pub. 2023/0247695)(F1 hereafter) in view of Shrivastava et al. (US Pub. 2024/0373320)(S1 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 (i.e. configuration using SIB)[paragraph 0140] 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],
determine that 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].
However, F1 fails to disclose that in response to the remote terminal having acquired a parameter broadcast in a system information block (SIB) and satisfying the condition of the remote terminal is within a relay coverage, determining that the remote terminal uses the parameter broadcast in the SIB.
S1 discloses that in NR, a UE can be in coverage by a network via Uu interface or out of coverage if connected to a relay [paragraph 0040], a SIB1 is broadcasted by a base station periodically and contains basic information on a cell that a UE may use to decide to access and define the scheduling of other SIBs [paragraph 0044], a remote UE can take into account whether the remote UE should select the SIB1 from cell-1 using a Uu path (i.e. direct base station path) or cell-2 using the PC5 path via relay UE [paragraph 0127], the remote UE is able to compare the SIB contents of the SIBs received via a relay UE and Uu interface [paragraph 0128], if the key SIB parameters or set of parameters are the same, then the remote UE can select to receive system information via any path [paragraph 0129], if the PLMN IDs of the received SIBs are different, the Remote UE may simply prioritize either SIB received via Relay UE over PC5 (preferred option) or the SIB received over Uu directly according to a predefined prioritization of the paths [paragraph 0140].
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 reception and use of SIB parameters according to the coverage prioritization as taught by S1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an improved method [refer S1; paragraph 0067] for a UE to choose a suitable network path/link [refer S1; paragraph 0082].
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].
Claims 2,3,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over F1 in view of S1, as applied to claims 1 and 14, in further 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) in further view of S1.
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],
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].
However, F1 fails to disclose determining whether to send the parameter for the remote terminal comprises: in response to the remote terminal having acquired a parameter broadcast in a system information block (SIB), and the remote terminal satisfying at least one of following conditions, determining to send the parameter through a system information block (SIB) the SIB for the remote terminal: the remote terminal is within a relay coverage.
S1 discloses that in NR, a UE can be in coverage by a network via Uu interface or out of coverage if connected to a relay [paragraph 0040], a SIB1 is broadcasted by a base station periodically and contains basic information on a cell that a UE may use to decide to access and define the scheduling of other SIBs [paragraph 0044], a remote UE can take into account whether the remote UE should select the SIB1 from cell-1 using a Uu path (i.e. direct base station path) or cell-2 using the PC5 path via relay UE [paragraph 0127], the remote UE is able to compare the SIB contents of the SIBs received via a relay UE and Uu interface [paragraph 0128], if the key SIB parameters or set of parameters are the same, then the remote UE can select to receive system information via any path [paragraph 0129], if the PLMN IDs of the received SIBs are different, the Remote UE may simply prioritize either SIB received via Relay UE over PC5 (preferred option) or the SIB received over Uu directly according to a predefined prioritization of the paths [paragraph 0140].
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 reception and use of SIB parameters according to the coverage prioritization as taught by S1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an improved method [refer S1; paragraph 0067] for a UE to choose a suitable network path/link [refer S1; paragraph 0082].
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 teaches in response to the remote terminal satisfying following conditions, send the parameter through 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 by the network 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, see pages 6-7, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1,8 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims requiring the acquisition of a parameter broadcasted in a system information block and satisfying a condition in order to use the acquired parameter. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Shrivastava et al. (US Pub. 2024/0373320)(S1 hereafter) as noted in the above rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uchiyama et al. (US Pub. 2019/0373493) discloses that a base station can transmit information indicating an activation region which can be range in which a relay should operate in a first mode to another relay terminal, the information provided by system information such as a physical broadcast channel or a SIB or RRC signaling [paragraph 0084].
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