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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines, numbers, and letters are not durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined in Figures 1-9. Figures 1-9 are all in grayscale which cause the lines, numbers, and letters to not be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. Additionally, drawings must be black and white (monochrome) except when another form (grayscale or color) is the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For Figures 1-9, black and white drawings with solid black lines are sufficient to illustrate the claimed invention. Black and white drawings should be created and filed in monochrome, black only, no gray.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in
reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. If a response to the present Office Action fails to include proper drawing corrections, corrected drawings or arguments therefor, the response can be held NON-RESPONSIVE and/or the application could be ABANDONED since the objections/corrections to the drawings are no longer held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being
anticipated by Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda.
Regarding claim 14, Freda discloses an apparatus, comprising at least one processor (FIG. 1B: 118 Processor) and at least one memory (FIG. 1B: 130 Non-Removable Memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
obtain a message from a network node, the message indicating that a user equipment may attempt to establish a sidelink connection with the apparatus, the message prohibiting the apparatus from establishing the sidelink connection with the user equipment, ([0232] “[…] the eNB may send a mobile relay deactivation message to the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may receive the mobile relay deactivation message. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop sending Model A discovery messages. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop responding to Model B solicitation messages. Ongoing mobile relay operations may be stopped. For example, one-to-one communications with the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may be stopped (see FIG. 3, and [0078]). The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop monitoring broadcast for TMGIs that are related to its mobile relay operation. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop transmitting broadcast data over the PC5 link”).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 14 above, Freda discloses wherein the apparatus is in a cell provided by the network node, and wherein the apparatus is to be handed over to another cell, ([0279] “Service continuity may be maintained for mobile relay WTRU handover from one eNB to another eNB. Mobility for a mobile relay WTRU may be considered. The mobile relay WTRU may move from the control of an eNB to another eNB”).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 14 above, Freda discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive a connection establishment attempt from the user equipment; and reject the connection establishment attempt based on the received message, ([0232] “[…] the eNB may send a mobile relay deactivation message to the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may receive the mobile relay deactivation message. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop sending Model A discovery messages. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop responding to Model B solicitation messages. Ongoing mobile relay operations may be stopped. For example, one-to-one communications with the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may be stopped. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop monitoring broadcast for TMGIs that are related to its mobile relay operation. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop transmitting broadcast data over the PC5 link” (see FIG. 3, and [0078]).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 18 above, Freda discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: inform the user equipment about a cause of the rejection, ([0232] “[…] the eNB may send a mobile relay deactivation message to the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may receive the mobile relay deactivation message. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop sending Model A discovery messages. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop responding to Model B solicitation messages. Ongoing mobile relay operations may be stopped. For example, one-to-one communications with the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may be stopped (see FIG. 3, and [0078]). The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop monitoring broadcast for TMGIs that are related to its mobile relay operation. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop transmitting broadcast data over the PC5 link”).
Regarding claim 20, Freda discloses a method, comprising: obtaining, by a user equipment, a message from a network node, the message indicating that another user equipment may attempt to establish a sidelink connection with the user equipment, the message prohibiting the user equipment from establishing the sidelink connection with the other user equipment, ([0232] “[…] the eNB may send a mobile relay deactivation message to the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may receive the mobile relay deactivation message. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop sending Model A discovery messages. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop responding to Model B solicitation messages. Ongoing mobile relay operations may be stopped. For example, one-to-one communications with the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may be stopped. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop monitoring broadcast for TMGIs that are related to its mobile relay operation. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop transmitting broadcast data over the PC5 link” (see FIG. 3, and [0078]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda.
Regarding claim 1, LIU discloses an apparatus, comprising at least one processor (FIG. 9: Processor 901) and at least one memory (FIG. 9: Memory 902) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
determine that a remote user equipment in a cell requires a path switch, the path switch comprising switching the remote user equipment to connect with the apparatus via a relay user equipment, ([0145] [0144] “When a source base station determines to switch remote UE from a direct connection to the base station to a connection to the base station via target relay UE, or determines to hand over remote UE from currently connected relay UE to another target Relay UE, i.e., determining a direct-to-indirect path switch […]);
provide, for the remote user equipment, a connection configuration for connecting with the apparatus via the relay user equipment, (FIG 7: step 401-407, [0140] […] in step S403, receiving, by the remote UE, an RRCReconfiguration message transmitted by the network, the message including sl-PathSwitchConfig, the local ID of the remote UE, and an L2-ID of target relay UE. [0141] […] in step S405, setting up, by the remote UE and the relay UE, a PC5 connection. [0142] […] in step S407, transmitting, by the remote UE, an RRCReconfigurationComplete message to the network, the message including the local ID of the remote UE, and the message being required to be forwarded via the relay UE […] [0143] […] in step S409, forwarding, by the relay UE, the RRCReconfigurationComplete message to the network according to information such as the local ID of the remote UE. Optionally, the relay UE transmits SidelinkUEInformationNR to the network […]”).
However, LIU does not disclose after providing the connection configuration, determine that the relay user equipment is to be handed over to another cell; and transmit a message to the relay user equipment, the message prohibiting the relay user equipment from establishing a sidelink connection with the remote user equipment.
In the same field of endeavor, Freda discloses after providing the connection configuration, determine that the relay user equipment is to be handed over to another cell; ([0279] “Service continuity may be maintained for mobile relay WTRU handover from one eNB to another eNB. Mobility for a mobile relay WTRU may be considered. The mobile relay WTRU may move from the control of an eNB to another eNB”);
transmit a message to the relay user equipment, the message prohibiting the relay user equipment from establishing a sidelink connection with the remote user equipment, ([0232] “[…] the eNB may send a mobile relay deactivation message to the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may receive the mobile relay deactivation message. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop sending Model A discovery messages. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop responding to Model B solicitation messages. Ongoing mobile relay operations may be stopped. For example, one-to-one communications with the mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may be stopped. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop monitoring broadcast for TMGIs that are related to its mobile relay operation. The mobile relay that the eNB is disabling may stop transmitting broadcast data over the PC5 link” see FIG. 3, and [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relay UE, disclosed by LIU ([0143]) to combine with the mobile relay WTRU disclosed by Freda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to handover from the current BS to another, thus ceasing connection with the remote UE, Freda ([0232], [0078]).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Freda as included in the combination of references, further discloses wherein the path switch comprises switching a connection of the remote user equipment from another indirect connection with the apparatus to the indirect connection with the apparatus via the relay user equipment, ([0092], [0090] “The remote WTRU may be capable of reselecting a different mobile relay WTRU when the mobile relay WTRU to which the remote WTRU connected becomes unsuitable to serve as its mobile relay. [0104] The remote WTRU may initiate a reselection procedure when the mobile relay WTRU is not announcing the service to be used by the WTRU and/or requested by the WTRU. […] [0108] Upon determining to reselect to a candidate mobile relay, the remote WTRU may perform one or more actions. For example, upon determining to reselect to a candidate mobile relay, the remote WTRU may tear down the connection with the mobile relay to which the remote WTRU is currently connected. Upon determining to reselect to a candidate mobile relay, the remote WTRU may initiate a connection establishment to the reselected candidate mobile relay. [0279] Service continuity may be maintained for mobile relay WTRU handover from one eNB to another eNB. Mobility for a mobile relay WTRU may be considered. The mobile relay WTRU may move from the control of an eNB to another eNB”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote UE, disclosed by LIU (FIG 7: step 401-407, [0140]) to integrate the remote WTRU disclosed by Freda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so as to cease the connection with the current mobile relay and initiate connection with a different relay, Freda ([0108], [0279]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of CHENG et al. (US 20240031891 A1), hereinafter CHENG.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, LIU as modified by Freda does not disclose wherein the apparatus is further caused to: select the relay user equipment via which the remote user equipment is to connect with the apparatus; and include in the connection configuration an indication of the selected relay user equipment for the remote user equipment.
In the same field of endeavor, CHENG discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: select the relay user equipment via which the remote user equipment is to connect with the apparatus, ([0005] “apparatuses that support handover procedures (e.g., forward handover procedures) for layer 2 (L2) relay mobility. Generally, the described techniques provide for a user equipment (UE) (e.g., a remote UE) communicating with a base station via a relay UE. A base station may identify a handover decision to switch the remote UE from communicating directly with the base station to communicating with the base station via a relay UE. In some cases, the base station may select the relay UE from a set of candidate relay UEs to enable the remote UE to communicate with the base station via the relay UE. The base station may additionally identify a configuration of the relay UE based on the handover decision associated with the relay pairing. The base station may indicate, to the remote UE, the configuration of the relay UE, an identifier of the relay UE, and that the remote UE is to switch to a sidelink communications link with the relay UE. The remote UE may then establish the sidelink communications link with the relay UE and may indicate, to the relay UE, that the sidelink communication link is for the handover associated with the relay pairing. Based on receiving the indication that the sidelink communication link is for the handover associated with the relay pairing, the relay UE may perform a connection setup procedure or a connection resumption procedure with the base station. In some cases, performing the connection setup or connection resumption procedure may trigger the relay UE to establish or
resume a connection with the base station”);
and include in the connection configuration an indication of the selected relay user equipment for the remote user equipment, ([0005] “apparatuses that support handover procedures (e.g., forward handover procedures) for layer 2 (L2) relay mobility. Generally, the described techniques provide for a user equipment (UE) (e.g., a remote UE) communicating with a base station via a relay UE. A base station may identify a handover decision to switch the remote UE from communicating directly with the base station to communicating with the base station via a relay UE. In some cases, the base station may select the relay UE from a set of candidate relay UEs to enable the remote UE to communicate with the base station via the relay UE. The base station may additionally identify a configuration of the relay UE based on the handover decision associated with the relay pairing. The base station may indicate, to the remote UE, the configuration of the relay UE, an identifier of the relay UE, and that the remote UE is to switch to a sidelink communications link with the relay UE. The remote UE may then establish the sidelink communications link with the relay UE and may indicate, to the relay UE, that the sidelink communication link is for the handover associated with the relay pairing. Based on receiving the indication that the sidelink communication link is for the handover associated with the relay pairing, the relay UE may perform a connection setup procedure or a connection resumption procedure with the base station. In some cases, performing the connection setup or connection resumption procedure may trigger the relay UE to establish or resume a connection with the base station”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relay UE, disclosed by LIU ([0143]) to combine with the relay UE disclosed by CHENG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable connection between the BS and the remote UE via the relay UE, CHENG ([0005]).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, LIU as modified by Freda does not disclose wherein the message is included in a handover command for the relay user equipment.
In the same field of endeavor, CHENG discloses wherein the message is included in a handover command for the relay user equipment, ([0005]” apparatuses that support handover procedures (e.g., forward handover procedures) for layer 2 (L2) relay mobility. Generally, the described techniques provide for a user equipment (UE) (e.g., a remote UE) communicating with a base station via a relay UE. A base station may identify a handover decision to switch the remote UE from communicating directly with the base station to communicating with the base station via a relay UE. In some cases, the base station may select the relay UE from a set of candidate relay UEs to enable the remote UE to communicate with the base station via the relay UE. The base station may additionally identify a configuration of the relay UE based on the handover decision associated with the relay pairing. [0228] identifying a configuration of the relay UE based at least in part on a handover decision associated with the relay pairing; and transmitting, to the UE, a message indicating the configuration of the relay UE, an identifier of the relay UE, and an indication that the UE is to switch to a sidelink communications link with the relay UE”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relay UE, disclosed by LIU ([0143]) to include the message indicating the configuration of the relay UE disclosed by CHENG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable connection between the BS and the remote UE via the relay UE, CHENG ([0005]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of CHENG et al. (US 20240340689 A1), hereinafter CHENG et al2.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, LIU as modified by Freda does not disclose wherein the message indicates the identity of the remote user equipment for the relay user equipment.
In the same field of endeavor, CHENG et al2 discloses wherein the message
indicates the identity of the remote user equipment for the relay user equipment, ([0079], [0081]- [0082], [0004] “the base station may assign or update identification information for the remote UE during, for example, an initial communications procedure, a handover procedure (e.g., path switching), a reconfiguration procedure, etc. […] as part of a handover procedure to a target relay UE, the base station may transmit (e.g., as part of a handover command) identification information for the remote UE to the remote UE and/or the target relay UE. In some examples, as part of a reconfiguration procedure, the base station may transmit an updated identification information for the remote UE to the relay UE (e.g., during downlink transmissions) or may transmit an updated identification information for the remote UE to the remote UE (e.g., during uplink transmissions). [0016] […] as part of a reconfiguration procedure, a base station may transmit an updated identification information for a remote UE to a relay UE (e.g., during downlink (DL) transmissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relay UE, disclosed by LIU ([0143]) to include the updated ID information for the remote UE disclosed by CHENG et al2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable the relay UE to identify the remote UE and establish a sidelink connection, ultimately extend coverage of the BS, CHENG et al2 ([0004], [0016]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of Seo et al. (US 20120106433 A1), hereinafter Seo.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, LIU as modified by Freda does not disclose wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the relay user equipment, an acknowledgement for the transmitted message.
In the same field of endeavor, Seo discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the relay user equipment, an acknowledgement for the transmitted message, ([0021] “a method for cooperatively transmitting a downlink between a base station and a relay station, the method comprising: receiving cooperative transmission data from the base station, and transmitting an acknowledgement message with respect to the cooperative transmission data to the base station; transmitting, to the base station, scheduling information for a cooperative transmission of the cooperative transmission data; and receiving, from the base station, an acknowledgement message with respect to the scheduling information, and transmitting the cooperative transmission data to a terminal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relay UE, disclosed by LIU ([0143]) to include the acknowledgement message disclosed by Seo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to establish connection between the relay station and the BS, and ultimately extending the coverage area of the BS, Seo ([0021]).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of SAHYOUN et al. (US 20250184861 A1), hereinafter SAHYOUN, and further in view of WU et al. (US 20250380193 A1), hereinafter, WU.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, LIU as modified by Freda does not disclose wherein the apparatus is or is comprised in a target network node and the remote user equipment is served by a source network node.
In the same field of endeavor, SAHYOUN discloses wherein the apparatus is or is comprised in a target network node and the remote user equipment is served by a source network node, ([0018] “This partial visibility between the transmitter Tx (source) device (Remote UE or gNB or source UE) and the receiver Rx (destination) device (Remote UE or gNB or target UE), resulting from the presence of the Relay UE between the aforementioned two hops, […] [0068] […] the remote UE1 101 is connected to the gNB 107 through the relay UE 100 with a PC5 hop 101a and a Uu hop 105a: for uplink communication, the remote UE1 101 is the source node (or transmitter node for transmitting data) and the gNB 107 is the destination or target node (or receiver node for receiving data) for a sidelink relay connection established between the remote UE1 101 and the gNB 107 with a PC5 hop 101a and a second Uu hop 105a”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the source base station, disclosed by LIU ([0144]) as modified by Freda to integrate the source node disclosed by SAHYOUN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to establish a relay-based network environment, SAHYOUN ([0018], [0068]).
However, LIU as modified by Freda and SAHYOUN does not disclose, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: provide a second message for the source network node, the second message indicating that the remote user equipment should not attempt to establish the sidelink connection with the relay user equipment.
In the same field of endeavor, WU discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: provide a second message for the source network node, the second message indicating that the remote user equipment should not attempt to establish the sidelink connection with the relay user equipment, ([0008] “the information may be received from the BS, and indicate at least one of the following: whether a bearer associated with the relay node and the UE should be suspended or continued; or a DAPS path switch is performed at the UE. [0134] the UE may stop the timer for path switch in response to a successful completion of random access on a target cell of the DAPS path switch or successfully transmitting an RRC reconfiguration complete message. The UE may perform at least one of the following after stopping the timer for path switch […] release the source connection in response to receiving a PC5 unicast link release indication; […] prohibit a detection of an RLF of a sidelink between the UE and the relay node; or release the source connection in response to receiving an RRC reconfiguration message from the target cell”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the source base station, disclosed by LIU ([0144]) as modified by Freda and SAHYOUN to integrate the information received from the BS disclosed by WU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to restrict any PC5 connection between the UE and relay node, WU ([0008], [0134]).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 7 above, LIU, as modified by Freda, Sahyoun, and Wu, discloses wherein the path switch comprises switching a connection of the remote user equipment from a direct connection with the source network node to the indirect connection with the target network node via the relay user equipment, or from an indirect connection with the source network node to the indirect connection with the target network node via the relay user equipment, ([0145], [0144] “When a source base station determines to switch remote UE from a direct connection to the base station to a connection to the base station via target relay UE, or determines to hand over remote UE from currently connected relay UE to another target Relay UE, i.e., determining a direct-to-indirect path switch […]”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al.
(US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of SAHYOUN et al. (US 20250184861 A1), hereinafter SAHYOUN, further in view of WU et al. (US 20250380193 A1), hereinafter WU, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20230008396 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, LIU as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU does not disclose wherein the second message further indicates cancellation of the path switch.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses wherein the second message further indicates cancellation of the path switch, ([0030], [0004] “[…] The base station may identify a high priority transmission that is to preempt the sidelink scheduling, and may send a cancellation indication to one or more sidelink UEs via a second DCI indicating that an allocation of one or more resources for sidelink communications has been canceled or modified. The first UE may receive the cancellation indication from the base station, and may modify the previously scheduled sidelink transmissions or may refrain from transmitting using the canceled resources based on the received sidelink cancellation indication”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the source base station, disclosed by LIU ([0144]) as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU to integrate the cancellation indication received from the BS disclosed by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to cease any PC5 connection between the UE and relay node, Wang ([0030], [0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of SAHYOUN et al. (US 20250184861 A1), hereinafter SAHYOUN, further in view of WU et al. (US 20250380193 A1), hereinafter WU, further in view of Wang et al. (US 20230008396 A1), hereinafter Wang, and further in view of Min XU (US 20230075762 A1), hereinafter XU.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 8 above, LIU as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, WU, and Wang does not disclose wherein the second message further indicates that a cause of the path switch cancellation is mobility of the relay user equipment.
In the same field of endeavor, XU discloses wherein the second message further indicates that a cause of the path switch cancellation is mobility of the relay user equipment, ([0109] “[…] path switch are performed between the source base station 62 and the target base station 63. [0016] if a relay UE moves or hands over to leave an original cell during handover preparation or handover of a remote UE and when the remote UE needs to be connected to a target base station by the relay UE, the handover will fail.[0022] when the relay UE is in the non-connected state, after setting up PC5 with the relay UE, the remote UE needs to wait for the relay UE to set up a connection with the target base station to complete the configuration. In this case, if the relay UE moves or hands over, the source base station cannot be notified in time, resulting in a handover failure. [0023] […] there is a certain evaluation time between receiving the handover condition and the actual handover procedure, if the relay UE moves during this period, the source base station cannot be notified in time, resulting in a handover failure. [0026] a base station handover failure caused by movement of a relay UE before handover is completed may be avoided, which is conducive to improving a handover success rate and communication efficiency” […] the remote UE can learn in time that the relay UE has moved or has been handed over based on replacement indication information, relay inform the source base station to stop handover operations with the original target base station”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the source base station, disclosed by LIU ([0144]) as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, WU, and Wang to integrate the replacement indication information disclosed by XU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to inform the BS of the moved relay UE (cancelled link), thus prevent a waste of power consumption and signal overhead, XU ([0109], [0016], [0022], [0026]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al.
(US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of SAHYOUN et al. (US 20250184861 A1), hereinafter SAHYOUN, further in view of WU et al. (US 20250380193 A1), hereinafter, WU, and further in view of CHENG et al. (US 20240031891 A1), hereinafter CHENG.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 7 above, LIU as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU does not disclose wherein the apparatus is further caused to: include in the second message an indication of another relay user equipment via which the remote user equipment can connect to the apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, CHENG discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: include in the second message an indication of another relay user equipment via which the remote user equipment can connect to the apparatus, ([0005] “apparatuses that support handover procedures (e.g., forward handover procedures) for layer 2 (L2) relay mobility. Generally, the described techniques provide for a user equipment (UE) (e.g., a remote UE) communicating with a base station via a relay UE. A base station may identify a handover decision to switch the remote UE from communicating directly with the base station to communicating with the base station via a relay UE. In some cases, the base station may select the relay UE from a set of candidate relay UEs to enable the remote UE to communicate with the base station via the relay UE. The base station may additionally identify a configuration of the relay UE based on the handover decision associated with the relay pairing. The base station may indicate, to the remote UE, the configuration of the relay UE, an identifier of the relay UE, and that the remote UE is to switch to a sidelink communications link with the relay UE”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the source base station, disclosed by LIU ([0144]) as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU to integrate the indication to the remote UE disclosed by CHENG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to inform the remote UE of the relay UE, thus enable a sidelink connection and increase the coverage area of the BS, CHENG ([0005]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of SAHYOUN et al. (US 20250184861 A1), hereinafter SAHYOUN, further in view of WU et al. (US 20250380193 A1), hereinafter, WU, and further in view of Min XU (US 20230075762 A1), hereinafter XU.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 7 above, LIU as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU does not disclose wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the source network node, an acknowledgement for the second message.
In the same field of endeavor, XU discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the source network node, an acknowledgement for the second message, ([0087] “In response to receiving the ACK, the target base station 54 performs s507 to transmit a handover request acknowledgment message (HO Req Ack) to the source base station 52”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the source base station, disclosed by LIU ([0144]) as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU to integrate the acknowledgment message disclosed by XU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to establish connection between
the target and source base stations, XU ([0087]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250071846 A1), hereinafter LIU, in view of Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, further in view of SAHYOUN et al. (US 20250184861 A1), hereinafter SAHYOUN, further in view of WU et al. (US 20250380193 A1), hereinafter, WU, further in view of CHENG et al. (US 20250274955 A1) hereinafter CHENG et al3, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 20250039765 A1), hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 7 above, LIU as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU does not disclose wherein the relay user equipment is, at the time of determining that the path switch is required, in a second cell provided by the target network node and the remote user equipment is in the cell provided by the source network node.
In the same field of endeavor, CHENG et al3 discloses wherein the relay user equipment is, at the time of determining that the path switch is required, in a second cell provided by the target network node and the remote user equipment is in the cell provided by the source network node, ((FIG. 1A), [0043] “[…] the UE 110 may communicate with the BS 140 via the UE 130 in earlier stage. As the UE 110 moves, the UE 110 may need to perform a path switch so as to communicate with the BS 150 via the UE 120. This scenario is called as an indirect-to-indirect path switch. In these scenarios, the UE 110 is called as a remote UE, the UE 120 is called as a target relay UE, the BS 140 serving the remote UE is called as a source BS, and the BS 150 serving the target relay UE is called as a target BS”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the source base station, disclosed by LIU ([0144]) as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU to integrate the source BS disclosed by CHENG et al3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to establish the source BS as the home network environment for the remote UE, CHENG et al3 ((FIG. 1A), [0043]).
However, CHENG et al3, as modified by LIU, Freda, SAHYOUN, and WU does not disclose the relay user equipment is to be handed over from the second cell to a third cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhu discloses the relay user equipment is to be handed over from the second cell to a third cell, ([0180] “when the mobile relay moves (it may be considered that the terminal device moves along with the mobile relay), and an access network device accessed by the mobile relay is changed, […] the mobile relay is handed over from a cell of the first access network device to a cell of the second access network device, for example, from the second cell to the third cell, the second access network device reports the second location information of the mobile relay to the core network device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the source base station, disclosed by LIU ([0144]) as modified by Freda, SAHYOUN, WU, and CHENG et al3 to integrate the mobile relay disclosed by Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve mobility of the relay device (relay handover), Zhu ([0180]).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda et al. (US 20180092017 A1), hereinafter Freda, in view of CHENG et al. (US 20240031891 A1), hereinafter CHENG.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 14 above, Freda does not disclose wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive an indication from the network node that the apparatus is to act as a relay for the user equipment.
In the same field of endeavor, CHENG discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive an indication from the network node that the apparatus is to act as a relay for the user equipment, ([0005] “apparatuses that support handover procedures (e.g., forward handover procedures) for layer 2 (L2) relay mobility. Generally, the described techniques provide for a user equipment (UE) (e.g., a remote UE) communicating with a base station via a relay UE. A base station may identify a handover decision to switch the remote UE from communicating directly with the base station to communicating with the base station via a relay UE. In some cases, the base station may select the relay UE from a set of candidate relay UEs to enable the remote UE to communicate with the base station via the relay UE. The base station may additionally identify a configuration of the relay UE based on the handover decision associated with the relay pairing. The base station may indicate, to the remote UE, the configuration of the relay UE, an identifier of the relay UE, and that the remote UE is to switch to a sidelink communications link with the relay UE. The remote UE may then establish the sidelink communications link with the relay UE and may indicate, to the relay UE, that the sidelink communication link is for the handover associated with the relay pairing. Based on receiving the indication that the sidelink communication link is for the handover associated with the relay pairing, the relay UE may perform a connection setup procedure or a connection resumption procedure with the base station. In some cases, performing the connection setup or connection resumption procedure may trigger the relay UE to establish or resume a connection with the base station” [0228] identifying a configuration of the relay UE based at least in part on a handover decision associated with the relay pairing; and transmitting, to the UE, a message indicating the configuration of the relay UE, an identifier of the relay UE, and an indication that the UE is to switch to a sidelink communications link with the relay UE”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the eNB, disclosed by Freda ([0232]) to include the configuration of the relay UE disclosed by CHENG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable the BS to establish connection with the relay UE, CHENG ([0005] [0228]).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 14 above, Freda does not disclose wherein the message is received in a handover command from the network node.
In the same field of endeavor, CHENG discloses wherein the message is received in a handover command from the network node, ([0005]” apparatuses that support handover procedures (e.g., forward handover procedures) for layer 2 (L2) relay mobility. Generally, the described techniques provide for a user equipment (UE) (e.g., a remote UE) communicating with a base station via a relay UE. A base station may identify a handover decision to switch the remote UE from communicating directly with the base station to communicating with the base station via a relay UE. In some cases, the base station may select the relay UE from a set of candidate relay UEs to enable the remote UE to communicate with the base station via the relay UE. The base station may additionally identify a configuration of the relay UE based on the handover decision associated with the relay pairing. [0228] identifying a configuration of the relay UE based at least in part on a handover decision associated with the relay pairing; and transmitting, to the UE, a message indicating the configuration of the relay UE, an identifier of the relay UE, and an indication that the UE is to switch to a sidelink communications link with the relay UE”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the eNB, disclosed by Freda ([0232]) to include the configuration of the relay UE disclosed by CHENG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable the BS to establish connection with the relay UE, CHENG ([0005] [0228]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT GRANT whose telephone number is (703)756-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 7:00 pm, Monday - Thursday.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/GILBERT M. GRANT/
Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642