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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 24-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Freda et al. (“Freda”) (US 20230180313 A1, effective filing date of provisional application 63/136,463 filed January 12, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Freda teaches:
An apparatus comprising: one or more processors, and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus [¶0187, remote WTRU source 191 Figure 1E] to perform:
monitoring if a remote terminal receives a first system information block from a first cell via a first path [¶0188, “A first remote WTRU (e.g., source 191) may make the decision of relay versus direct connection, both, and/or neither, based on one or more of the following factors” wherein ¶0198, remote terminal receives system information of the cell acquired via Uu by the remote WTRU, wherein remote WTRU is camped on the “same or related cell to the cell serving the relay WTRU” thus the “related cell” corresponds to “first cell via a first path”] and a second system information block from a second cell via a second path different from the first path [¶0198, compares system information forwarded by the relay WTRU, which is connected to a cell serving the relay WTRU different from the related cell on which the remote terminal is camped];
comparing a content of the first system information block with a content of the second system information block if the remote terminal receives the first system information block and the second system information block [¶0198, “comparing, for example, system information of the cell acquired via Uu by the remote WTRU, and system information forwarded by the relay WTRU”];
selecting one of the first path and the second path based on a result of the comparing [¶0198, for deciding which link over which to establish a connection, ¶0188 decide on UL or SL for connection to a cell, wherein selecting the SL path corresponds to selecting the second path];
and causing the remote terminal to connect via the selected one of the first path and the second path [¶0187-188 establish link based on factors to e.g. second path].
Regarding claim 2, Freda teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the first path is directly from the first cell to the remote terminal [¶0198, Uu connection directly from related cell]; and the second path is from the second cell via one or more first relay terminals to the remote terminal [¶0198, second connection via relay WTRU to cell serving relay WTRU].
Regarding claim 3, Freda teaches:
the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the comparing comprises comparing, for the first system information block and the second system information block, at least one of:
an identity of a mobile communication network indicated in the respective system information block; an identity of the cell indicated in the respective system information block [¶0198, comparing information including CELL IDs or PLMN identifiers]; a validity area of the respective system information block indicated in the respective system information block; an availability of one or more further system information blocks via the respective path, as indicated in the respective system information block; or a method to obtain at least one of the one or more further system information blocks via the respective path, as indicated in the respective system information block.
Regarding claim 4, Freda teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, if at least one of the identity of the mobile communication network, the identity of the cell, the validity area, the availability of the one or more further system information blocks, and the method to obtain at least one of the one or more further system information blocks is different between the first system information block and the second system information block, a predefined one of the first system information block and the second system information block is selected [¶0197, if compared system information shows same cell ID from a list, select relay WTRU i.e. second path SI is selected].
Regarding Claim 5, Freda teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to perform:
determining whether or not the remote terminal is connected to the second cell via the one or more first relay terminals [¶0198, determine connection via relay by receiving system information of cell acquired by forwarding from the relay WTRU, wherein also ¶0189 determines if there is a PC5-RRC connection to network via relay];
wherein if at least one of the identity of the cell indicated in the first system information block is the same as the identity of the cell indicated in the second system information block and the validity area of the first system information block indicated in the first system information block is the same as the validity area of the second system information block indicated in the second system information block [¶0198, wherein one factor involves comparing to see if common information between system information of the two cells e.g. identifier], the selecting comprises selecting the first path if the remote terminal is not connected to the second cell via the one or more first relay terminals [see ¶0189 wherein relay not selected if no PC5-RRC connection to relay, see also ¶0192 wherein relay may indicate it cannot establish the relay to network connection via second path, thus Uu over first path is selected] and selecting the second path if the remote terminal is connected to the second cell via the one or more first relay terminals [¶0189, ¶0198, select relay connection via second path if there is a connection to second terminal].
Regarding claim 6, Freda teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to perform:
checking if at least one of the first system information block and the second system information block comprises a respective prioritization indication indicating if one of the first path and the second path is prioritized; wherein the selecting comprises selecting the prioritized path [¶0193 in addition, configuration of a bearer, corresponding to at least one of the system information blocks as the claim does not specify a specific system information block thus may be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, and this configuration indicates priority of Uu via first path if priority meets a condition].
Regarding claim 8, Freda teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, if the identity of the cell indicated in the first system information block is the same as the identity of the cell indicated in the second system information block [¶0198 wherein configuration information may be detected as common between system information blocks, and is considered as a factor of multiple factors], the one of the first path and the second path is selected additionally based on at least one of: an availability and/or a utilization of the second path; a quality of the first path; a quality of the second path; a load on the first path; and or a load on the second path [¶0188, ¶0190-191 path quality is further factor in determining which link].
Regarding claims 24-29, 31, see similar rejections for claim 1-6, 8 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 30, Freda teaches:
The method according to claim 29, further comprising: deciding, if both the first system information block and the second system information block comprises the respective prioritization indication, whether or not the prioritization indications are contradictory [Freda does not teach the case in which prioritization information is contradictory, and Examiner notes that this is a contingent limitation which does not have patentable weight if the condition does not necessarily occur, thus the condition does not require support as the case of Freda teaches the method in which the condition is not triggered, see MPEP 2111.04 section II]; requesting at least one of the first cell and the second cell to jointly agree on a prioritization of the first path and the second path; receiving an indication of the jointly agreed prioritization in response to the requesting; wherein the one of the first path and the second path is selected based on the indication of the jointly agreed prioritization.
Regarding claim 32, Freda teaches:
The method according to claim 25, further comprising: deciding if the content of the second system information block is acceptable for the remote terminal [¶0198, determine system information is acceptable and the relay is selected as the two system information blocks indicates the common configuration information]; creating a third path and removing the second path if the content of the second system information block is not acceptable for the remote terminal; replacing the second system information block by a third system information block received via the third path; wherein the third path is from a third cell via one or more second relay terminals to the remote terminal; and at least one of the one or more second relay terminals is different from each of the one or more first relay terminals [Freda does not teach the case in which system information is not acceptable, and Examiner notes that this is a contingent limitation which does not have patentable weight if the condition does not necessarily occur, thus the condition does not require support as the case of Freda teaches the method in which the condition is not triggered, see MPEP 2111.04 section II].
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda et al. (“Freda”) (US 20230180313 A1, effective filing date of provisional application 63/136,463 filed January 12, 2021) in view of Chang et al. (“Chang”) (US 20230336962 A1, effective filing date of provisional application 63/104,390 filed October 22, 2020).
Regarding claim 9, Freda teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to perform: deciding if the content of the second system information block is acceptable for the remote terminal [¶0198, determine system information from relay corresponding to second system information is acceptable and connecting via relay].
Freda teaches determining if system information is acceptable but does not teach reselecting when it is not acceptable.
Chang teaches creating a third path and removing the second path if the content of the second system information block is not acceptable for the remote terminal; replacing the second system information block by a third system information block received via the third path; wherein the third path is from a third cell via one or more second relay terminals to the remote terminal; and at least one of the one or more second relay terminals is different from each of the one or more first relay terminals. Use Chang, reselect based on system information [¶0047, Chang, wherein relay reselection (corresponding to creating a third path) is performed based on system information for plurality of relays, thus the relay selected is based on third system information replacing e.g. second system information from another relay that is received but not selected, therefore corresponding to the system information for that unselected relay being unacceptable and removed by not being selected].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2021204232 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478