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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 12/18/2025 are entered. The amendments change the scopes of the previously presented claims. New grounds of rejections are applied to the currently amended claims and the current Office Action is made FINAL as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 40-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 17, 19, 24-35 and 37-39 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections of claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 17, 19, 24-35 and 37-39 has been withdrawn.
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) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao (US 2024/0049099).
Yao discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 40, a network entity of a wireless network (see network device in Fig. 1), comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors connected with the memory (see memory 2202 and processor 2201 in Fig. 22),
the one or more processors being configured to:
communicate with a remote UE (see “remote terminal device” recited in paragraph [0032] and shown throughout the document and figures) using a first wireless connection via a relay UE (see relay terminal device in Fig. 1);
transmit, to the remote UE, redirection information in a RRC message (see “RRC release message” recited in paragraph [0032]; also see “the second message is an RRC message” recited in paragraph [0420]) to trigger the remote UE to disconnect the first wireless connection (see “the second message is an RRC message, and the RRC message indicates the remote terminal device to release the first path. For example, the second message may be an RRC release message” recited in paragraph [0420], wherein steps 1301-1303 in Fig. 13A shows that the second message also include first information for the data transmission to be performed on the second path, which is considered to include redirection information) and establish a second wireless connection with the wireless network (see Fig. 13A, wherein the first and second message being sent to the remote terminal device via a relay terminal device);
communicate with the remote UE using the second wireless connection according to the redirection information (see step 1303 in Fig. 13A, wherein the remote terminal device performs data transmission on the second path; Fig. 5 also shows the path switching that establishes the second connection after the switch).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao as applied to claims 1, 24 and 40 above, and further in view of Berggren (US 2021/0136655).
Yao discloses the features as shown above.
Yao does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 41, receive coverage status information from the remote UE, wherein the coverage status information indicates whether the remote UE is out-of-coverage of the wireless network.
Berggren discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 41, receive coverage status information from the remote UE, wherein the coverage status information indicates whether the remote UE is out-of-coverage of the wireless network (see “The terminal may be configured to transmit the in-coverage indicator to the network node 10, e.g. in said service request procedure. In one embodiment, the network node may be configured to provide said information to indicate indirect downlink data transmission, responsive to said in-coverage indicator indicating that the terminal 100 is out of coverage from the network node 10” recited in paragraph [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Yao using features, as taught by Berggren, in order to determine network coverage status (see paragraph [0073] of Berggren).
Claim(s) 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao as applied to claims 40 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2023/0180097).
Yao discloses the features as shown above.
Yao also discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 44, establish the second wireless connection with the UE using a relay UE indicated by the RRC message (see step 1303 in Fig. 13A, and paragraphs [0420]-[0423], wherein the RRC message include the first information indicating the second path and the second remote terminal device connects with the network device via the second path).
Yao does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 42, wherein the RRC message comprises at least one of: one or more candidate relay UE identifiers; timer information for the RRC establishment procedure or an RRC re-establishment procedure; a priority order for selecting a relay UE or a network entity for the RRC establishment procedure or an RRC re-establishment procedure; frequency information of the relay UE; or cell information of the relay UE; regarding claim 43, establish the second wireless connection with the UE using an RRC establishment procedure or an RRC re-establishment procedure in response to the RRC message; regarding claim 45, wherein the RRC message comprises at least one of: timer information for the RRC establishment procedure or an RRC re-establishment procedure; one or more candidate relay UE identifiers; one or more candidate network entity identifiers; a condition for triggering a RRC re-establishment procedure; or a priority order for selecting a relay UE or a network entity for a RRC re-establishment procedure.
Zhang discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 42, wherein the RRC message comprises at least one of: one or more candidate relay UE identifiers (see “candidate relay UE ID with Cell ID” recited in paragraph [0141]); timer information for the RRC establishment procedure or an RRC re-establishment procedure; a priority order for selecting a relay UE or a network entity for the RRC establishment procedure or an RRC re-establishment procedure; frequency information of the relay UE; or cell information of the relay UE (see “candidate relay UE ID with Cell ID” recited in paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 43, establish the second wireless connection with the UE using an RRC establishment procedure or an RRC re-establishment procedure in response to the RRC message see Fig. 9, step 940 after the network RRC release in step 920 and paragraph [0141] to establish the PC5-RRC link with a relay UE).
Regarding claim 45, wherein the RRC message comprises at least one of: timer information for the RRC establishment procedure or an RRC re-establishment procedure; one or more candidate relay UE identifiers (see “candidate relay UE ID with Cell ID” recited in paragraph [0141]; one or more candidate network entity identifiers; a condition for triggering a RRC re-establishment procedure; or a priority order for selecting a relay UE or a network entity for a RRC re-establishment procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Yao using features, as taught by Zhang, in order to allow relay re-selection and path switching (see paragraph [0144]-[0145]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 17, 19, 24-35 and 37-39 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: no reasonable combination of prior art references is found to disclose all of the claimed features required in the currently allowed claims, each of which include claim features as represented in claim 1, which includes “A method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving redirection information in a radio resource control (RRC) message using a first connection with a wireless network via a first relay UE, wherein the redirection information comprises a priority order for selecting a relay UE; releasing, in response to the RRC message, the first connection with the wireless network; and establishing a second connection with the wireless network according to the redirection information.”
Specifically, the claim requires that the received “RRC message” include “redirection information that comprises a priority order for selecting a relay UE” and is received using a first connection via a first relay UE. In addition “the first connection” is released in response to the same “RRC message”. Previously cited prior art, Yao, discloses an RRC Release message that is received on the first connection and triggers the release of the “first connection” and includes “redirection information”. Yao, however, fails to disclose that the “redirection information” in the RRC message also includes “a priority order for selecting a relay UE”.
New found references relevant to the claim includes Freda (US 2024/0259906), Cheng (US 2023/0136426) and Zhang (US 2023/0180097).
Freda discloses a relay selection/re-selection process, wherein the remote WTRU receives priority information for a list of relays from the network (paragraph [0155]). Freda discloses that the list of relays may be provided via RRC signaling but does not disclose how the priority information is received. It also does not specify that any of these information being received via an RRC Release message. Therefore, even when Freda is combined with Yao, the claimed “priority order for selecting a relay UE would not necessarily have been included in the same RRC message that triggers the release of the first connection as required by the currently allowed claims. Zhang also disclose similar teaching and include the deficiency as Freda (Zhang paragraphs [0110]-[0113], which disclose the use of priority information to select relay UE).
Cheng discloses the use of a relay discovery pool for sidelink. A remote UE obtains list and priorities of relay UEs via RRC message from the connected relay UE (paragraph [0078]). Although Cheng does disclose that the priority information being included in an “RRC message”, there is no teaching that suggest that this “RRC message” also triggers the release of the “first connection” as required in the currently allowed claims. Therefore, even when Freda is combined with Yao, the claimed “priority order for selecting a relay UE would not necessarily have been included in the same RRC message that triggers the release of the first connection as required by the currently allowed claims.
As shown above, the closest references found in the search fail to disclose the entirety of the required claim features as required in the currently presented claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 17, 19, 24-35 and 37-39. Currently presented claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 17, 19, 24-35 and 37-39 are therefore found to be allowable over prior arts.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUTAI KAO whose telephone number is (571)272-9719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-17:00 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, Kwang Yao can be reached at (571)272-3182. 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.
/JUTAI KAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights