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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: mistyped. Claim 1 line 6, word “pane” should be corrected as “plane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burbidge et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0213577).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Burbidge discloses a remote wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (figure 12 remote UE 106) method comprising:
a processor (figure 15 processor 1516; paragraphs 178, 179) configured to:
send user plane (UP) path selection context information to a base station, via a first wireless communication path, wherein the UP path selection context information comprises information associated with a path selection preference of a relay WTRU (figure 12 step 3: measurement reporting with Relay UE ID; paragraph 148: remote UE sends measurement report via direct connection to base station with relay UE ID for user data transmission);
receive user plane connection configuration information from the base station (figure 12 step 4; paragraphs 149-150: base station sends an RRC Connection Reconfiguration message to remote UE with instructions to switch to relay UE with relay UE ID);
based on the user plane connection configuration information, determine whether to communicate via the first wireless communication path or via a second wireless communication path (paragraphs 152-156: based on the RRC Reconfiguration message, remote UE switches to second wireless path involving relay UE); and
send data traffic to the base station via the first wireless communication path or via the second wireless communication path based on the determination to communicate via the first wireless communication path or via the second wireless communication path (figure 12 step 9; paragraphs 155-156: user data is transmitted between remote UE and base station via relay UE).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge further teaches the processor is configured to establish or modify a UP connection to determine the second wireless communication path (paragraphs 152 and 153: establishing path with relay UE).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge further teaches the path selection context information comprises one or more of the following parameters: a list of candidate relay WTRUs (paragraph 148: list of 1 relay UE or paragraph 158: list of 2 UEs)
Regarding claims 6 and 16, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge further teaches the user plane connection configuration information comprises WTRU ID of the relay WTRU (paragraph 150).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge further teaches the user plane connection configuration information comprises first configuration information corresponding to a radio link control (RLC) layer, a media access control (MAC) layer, or a physical (PHY) layer for direct communication (figure 12 step 21; paragraph 163), and wherein the user plane connection configuration information comprise second configuration information corresponding to a RLC layer, a MAC layer, or a PHY layer for sidelink communication (figure 12 step 5; paragraph 150).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge further teaches wherein the path selection context information is sent via at least one of a measurement report (figure 12 step 3; paragraph 148).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbidge et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0213577) in view of Teyeb et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0080697).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge does not teach but Teyeb discloses the path selection preference of
the relay WTRU is associated with a capacity at the relay WTRU (paragraphs 198 and 199: association/based on relay UE’s load).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Burbidge the path selection preference of the relay WTRU is associated with a capacity at the relay WTRU.
The motivation would have been for congestion avoidance (paragraph 200).
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbidge et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0213577).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge’s figure 12 does not teach the first wireless communication path is an indirect wireless communication path between the remote WTRU and the base station, and wherein the second communication path is a direct wireless communication path between the remote WTRU and the base station.
However, Burbidge’s figures 3a/3b and paragraphs 64 and 68 teach control plane SRB may be carried via Relay UE. Thus, the first wireless path is via relay UE (indirect), and second wireless path is direct.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Burbidge the first wireless communication path is an indirect wireless communication path between the remote WTRU and the base station, and wherein the second communication path is a direct wireless communication path between the remote WTRU and the base station.
The motivation would have been for diversity.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge’s figure 12 embodiment does not teach the first wireless communication path is via an indirect wireless communication path and the user plane connection configuration information is carried in a PC5 Radio Resource Control (RRC) message from a device.
However, Burbidge’s figures 3a/3b and paragraphs 64 and 68 teach control plane SRB may be carried via Relay UE, and a PC5 Radio Resource Control (RRC) message from a device (paragraphs 64, 130, 195).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Burbidge the first wireless communication path is via an indirect wireless communication path and the user plane connection configuration information is carried in a PC5 Radio Resource Control (RRC) message from a device.
The motivation would have been for diversity.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbidge et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0213577) in view of Harrebek et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0258061).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, all limitations of claims 1 and 11 are disclosed above. Burbidge further teaches control configuration for measurement reporting is sent from base station to remote UE (paragraph 148). Burbidge does not teach but Harrebek discloses the UP path selection context information is sent based on a request from the base station, based on a triggered event (paragraphs 94 and 95: poor UL quality trigger for measurement request from base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Burbidge the UP path selection context information is sent based on a request from the base station, based on a triggered event.
The motivation would have been for poor signaling quality condition response.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US Pub. No. 2023/0397081) discloses remote UE switches between direct and indirect paths with base station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466