DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/7/2026 has been entered. In response to amendment filed on 8/7/2026, claims 2- 4, 10 and 17- 18 are cancelled, claims 1, 6, 8- 9 and 19 are amended and claims 23- 24 are added as new claims. Claims 1, 5- 9, 11- 16 and 19- 24 are pending for examinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed in the remarks on 8/7/2026 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1’s, amended limitations, “…the notification message to the second remote terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request”; further claim 9’s amended limitations, “notification message is sent by relay terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request….; are not disclosed in the specification. Hence, it’s a new matter scenario. Similar claim languages are written in amended claims of 19- 20. Hence claims 19 is also rejected as a new matter scenario. The other claims which are dependent to claims 1, 9 and 19- 20 can also be rejected based on above rationale.
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.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9’s limitations, “wherein when the notification message is sent in response to the connection failure, the remote terminal device is a first remote terminal device; and when the notification message is sent in response to receiving the connection request during the operation of the timer, the remote terminal device is a second remote terminal device, and the second remote terminal device is the remote terminal device that sends the connection request…”; here its confusing to understand that remote device is first or second terminal device, hence its indefinite.
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) 1, 5, 9, 11- 13, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0180313 A1), hereafter Martino and in further view of Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0178343 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a method for connection failure processing, performed by a relay terminal device, and (see [0102] here relay UE as a relay terminal and remote UE as a remote terminal), the method comprising:
performing an access operation in response to a trigger of a radio resource control (RRC) connection establishment, or an RRC connection resume, or an RRC connection reestablishment of a first remote terminal device (in context with [0086, 0101] pls refer to [0102] access operation RRC procedure);
sending, a notification message to the first remote terminal device in response to an connection failure of the access operation, wherein the notification message indicates the connection failure of the access operation (see [0102].. if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred (e.g., either in the relay link or the Uu link), the relay UE may take action in response to the RRC message transmission failure. For example, for the relay link failure case, the relay UE may inform the network of the relay link failure. For the Uu link failure case, the relay UE may provide information to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure, which may facilitate the remote UE performing link reselection. For example, the relay UE may send an indication of the Uu link failure to the remote UE, as one possibility. As another possibility, the relay UE may send an indication to suspend the relay link to all remote UEs that have a relay link established with the relay UE. As a still further possibility, the relay UE may close the relay link with the remote UE directly (e.g., possibly without explicitly indicating that the Uu link failure has occurred.), and the notification message is used by the first remote terminal device for performing relay terminal device reselection (see [0115] last three lines); the method further comprising:
in response to the connection failure of the relay terminal device, starting a timer (see [0120] #2016 starting a guard timer).
But fails to state about
receiving a connection request sent by a second remote terminal device being from a specific bearer during operation of the timer, wherein an RRC connection request message of the second remote terminal device is carried in the specific bearer; and
sending, the notification message to the second remote terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request.
However, Martino teaches in Fig. 1E and [0114- 0015 and [0170- 0171]] about … a source WTRU may transmit separate RRC messages to each WTRU in the link. For example, a first remote WTRU (e.g., source 191) may transmit multiple RRC messages to configure each of the WTRUs along the relay path. The first remote WTRU may determine the presence of one or more relay WTRUs along the path to a second remote WTRU (e.g., destination 193) based on similar mechanisms as described herein (e.g., in the previous case); see [0171]. Here Martino also states in [0147, 0212- 0213] about remote UE sending a connection request to relay on specific bearer; see [0211, 0248] i.e. SL-SRB/LCH as a specific bearer; further Martino teaches sending, the notification message to the second remote terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request; see [0171] and [0191- 0192].. One factor that may be involved in deciding the link over which to establish a connection may be one or more indications from the relay WTRU. For example, a remote WTRU may establish/resume a Uu RRC connection via a relay WTRU if the relay WTRU allows this, or based on information provided by the relay WTRU. For example, a remote WTRU may receive an indication from the relay WTRU that a relayed connection cannot be established. Such indication may come in the form of a response to a PC5-RRC reconfiguration message (e.g., a reconfiguration failure). Such indication may come in the form of a PC5-RRC message or other protocol layer message initiated by the relay WTRU (e.g., a flow control message explicitly/implicitly indicating such; e.g., a PC5-RRC message broadcast by the relay WTRU indicating that the relay should not be accessed).; see [0192].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Martino with the teachings of Xu to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein receiving a connection request sent by a second remote terminal device being from a specific bearer during operation of the timer, wherein an RRC connection request message of the second remote terminal device is carried in the specific bearer; and sending, the notification message to the second remote terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request; greater way more reliable connection can be carried out in the communication system.
But Xu in view of Martino teaches about remote UE sending a connection request to relay on specific bearer; see Martino [0147, 0211- 0213 and 0248], but fails to explicitly states about requesting during operation of the timer; however Kim states in Fig. 24 about barring or extended wait timer is running and eremote-UE (second remore UE here) send a request. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Xu in view of Martino to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 5, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 4, wherein the notification message carries a duration of the timer; Xu see [0120] timer duration.
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches a method for connection failure processing, the method comprising (see [0102] here relay UE as a relay terminal and remote UE as a remote terminal):
receiving, by a remote terminal device, a notification message sent by a relay terminal device, wherein the notification message is sent by the relay terminal device in response to a connection failure occurring to the relay terminal device when the relay terminal device performs access operation, or
the notification message is sent by the relay terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request in response to the relay terminal device receiving, during operation of a timer of the relay terminal device, a connection request sent by the remote terminal device (see [0102].. if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred (e.g., either in the relay link or the Uu link), the relay UE may take action in response to the RRC message transmission failure. For example, for the relay link failure case, the relay UE may inform the network of the relay link failure. For the Uu link failure case, the relay UE may provide information to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure, which may facilitate the remote UE performing link reselection. For example, the relay UE may send an indication of the Uu link failure to the remote UE, as one possibility. As another possibility, the relay UE may send an indication to suspend the relay link to all remote UEs that have a relay link established with the relay UE. As a still further possibility, the relay UE may close the relay link with the remote UE directly (e.g., possibly without explicitly indicating that the Uu link failure has occurred.), and performing relay terminal device reselection after the remote terminal device receives the notification message, wherein the notification message indicates the connection failure of the relay terminal device (see [0115] last three lines).
wherein when the notification message is sent in response to the connection failure, the remote terminal device is a first remote terminal device (see [0102].. if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred (e.g., either in the relay link or the Uu link), the relay UE may take action in response to the RRC message transmission failure. For example, for the relay link failure case, the relay UE may inform the network of the relay link failure. For the Uu link failure case, the relay UE may provide information to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure, which may facilitate the remote UE performing link reselection. For example, the relay UE may send an indication of the Uu link failure to the remote UE, as one possibility. As another possibility, the relay UE may send an indication to suspend the relay link to all remote UEs that have a relay link established with the relay UE. As a still further possibility, the relay UE may close the relay link with the remote UE directly (e.g., possibly without explicitly indicating that the Uu link failure has occurred.), and the notification message is used by the first remote terminal device for performing relay terminal device reselection (see [0115] last three lines); and
wherein the method further comprises: sending to the relay terminal device an RRC establishment request message, an RRC resume request message, or an RRC reestablishment request message(in context with [0086, 0101] pls refer to [0102] access operation RRC procedure).
But Xu is silent to teach about
when the notification message is sent in response to receiving the connection request during the operation of the timer, the remote terminal device is a second remote terminal device, and the second remote terminal device is the remote terminal device that sends the connection request being from a specific bearer during operation of the timer, wherein an RRC connection request message of the second remote terminal device is carried in the specific bearer.
However, Martino teaches in Fig. 1E and [0114- 0015 and [0170- 0171]] about … a source WTRU may transmit separate RRC messages to each WTRU in the link. For example, a first remote WTRU (e.g., source 191) may transmit multiple RRC messages to configure each of the WTRUs along the relay path. The first remote WTRU may determine the presence of one or more relay WTRUs along the path to a second remote WTRU (e.g., destination 193) based on similar mechanisms as described herein (e.g., in the previous case); see [0171]. Here Martino also states in [0147, 0212- 0213] about remote UE sending a connection request to relay on specific bearer; see [0211, 0248] i.e. SL-SRB/LCH as a specific bearer; further Martino teaches sending, the notification message to the second remote terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request; see [0171] and [0191- 0192].. One factor that may be involved in deciding the link over which to establish a connection may be one or more indications from the relay WTRU. For example, a remote WTRU may establish/resume a Uu RRC connection via a relay WTRU if the relay WTRU allows this, or based on information provided by the relay WTRU. For example, a remote WTRU may receive an indication from the relay WTRU that a relayed connection cannot be established. Such indication may come in the form of a response to a PC5-RRC reconfiguration message (e.g., a reconfiguration failure). Such indication may come in the form of a PC5-RRC message or other protocol layer message initiated by the relay WTRU (e.g., a flow control message explicitly/implicitly indicating such; e.g., a PC5-RRC message broadcast by the relay WTRU indicating that the relay should not be accessed).; see [0192].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Martino with the teachings of Xu to make system more effective. Having a mechanism when the notification message is sent in response to receiving the connection request during the operation of the timer, the remote terminal device is a second remote terminal device, and the second remote terminal device is the remote terminal device that sends the connection request being from a specific bearer during operation of the timer, wherein an RRC connection request message of the second remote terminal device is carried in the specific bearer; greater way more reliable connection can be carried out in the communication system.
But Xu in view of Martino teaches about remote UE sending a connection request to relay on specific bearer; see Martino [0147, 0211- 0213 and 0248], but fails to explicitly states about requesting during operation of the timer; however Kim states in Fig. 24 about barring or extended wait timer is running and eremote-UE (second remore UE here) send a request. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Xu in view of Martino to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 11, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 9, further Xu teaches comprising:
performing, in response to receiving the notification message, one or more of:
performing RRC establishment failure processing in response to receiving the notification message after sending an RRC establishment request message to the relay terminal device;
performing RRC resume failure processing in response to receiving the notification message after sending an RRC resume request message to the relay terminal device;
reestablishing all established bearer radio link layer control (RLC);
notifying, in response to an RRC connection establishment being requested by a higher layer, the higher layer that access is prohibited;
notifying, in response to a process initiated by the remote terminal device being an RRC establishment process, the higher layer of a connection establishment failure;
discarding, in response to a process initiated by the remote terminal device being an RRC resume process, all secret keys for communication with a network device;
notifying, in response to a process initiated by the remote terminal device being the RRC resume process and the RRC connection resume process being triggered by the higher layer, the higher layer of a connection resume failure;
setting, in response to a process initiated by the remote terminal device being the RRC resume process and the RRC connection resume process being triggered by updating of a radio access network notification area (RNA), a delay for updating the RNA to be true; or
performing relay terminal device reselection;see [0115] last three lines..
Regarding claim 12, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 11, wherein Xu teaches the notifying the higher layer that the access is prohibited comprises:
notifying the higher layer that access of all access categories is prohibited; or
notifying the higher layer that access of all access categories other than access categories 0 and 2 is prohibited; see claim 11’s its “OR” limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 9, further comprising: determining, in response to receiving the notification message, whether a duration of a timer has been configured; and starting the timer in response to the duration of the timer having been configured; Xu see [0120] guard timer duration and initiating it.
Regarding claim 16, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 13, wherein the duration of the timer is carried in the notification message, or is configured by a network device, or is configured by the relay terminal device, or is specified by a protocol; Xu see [0120] timer duration.
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches a terminal device, comprising; a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, through executing the instructions stored in the memory, is configured to (see [0102] here relay UE as a terminal and remote UE as a remote terminal), the method comprising:
performing an access operation in response to a trigger of a radio resource control (RRC) connection establishment, or an RRC connection resume, or an RRC connection reestablishment of a first remote terminal device (in context with [0086, 0101] pls refer to [0102] access operation RRC procedure);
send, a notification message to the first remote terminal device in response to an connection failure of the access operation, wherein the notification message indicates the connection failure of the access operation (see [0102].. if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred (e.g., either in the relay link or the Uu link), the relay UE may take action in response to the RRC message transmission failure. For example, for the relay link failure case, the relay UE may inform the network of the relay link failure. For the Uu link failure case, the relay UE may provide information to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure, which may facilitate the remote UE performing link reselection. For example, the relay UE may send an indication of the Uu link failure to the remote UE, as one possibility. As another possibility, the relay UE may send an indication to suspend the relay link to all remote UEs that have a relay link established with the relay UE. As a still further possibility, the relay UE may close the relay link with the remote UE directly (e.g., possibly without explicitly indicating that the Uu link failure has occurred.), and the notification message is used by the first remote terminal device for performing relay terminal device reselection (see [0115] last three lines); the method further comprising:
in response to the connection failure of the relay terminal device, starting a timer (see [0120] #2016 starting a guard timer).
But fails to state about
receive a connection request sent by a second remote terminal device being from a specific bearer during operation of the timer, wherein an RRC connection request message of the second remote terminal device is carried in the specific bearer; and
send, the notification message to the second remote terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request.
However, Martino teaches in Fig. 1E and [0114- 0015 and [0170- 0171]] about … a source WTRU may transmit separate RRC messages to each WTRU in the link. For example, a first remote WTRU (e.g., source 191) may transmit multiple RRC messages to configure each of the WTRUs along the relay path. The first remote WTRU may determine the presence of one or more relay WTRUs along the path to a second remote WTRU (e.g., destination 193) based on similar mechanisms as described herein (e.g., in the previous case); see [0171]. Here Martino also states in [0147, 0212- 0213] about remote UE sending a connection request to relay on specific bearer; see [0211, 0248] i.e. SL-SRB/LCH as a specific bearer; further Martino teaches sending, the notification message to the second remote terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request; see [0171] and [0191- 0192].. One factor that may be involved in deciding the link over which to establish a connection may be one or more indications from the relay WTRU. For example, a remote WTRU may establish/resume a Uu RRC connection via a relay WTRU if the relay WTRU allows this, or based on information provided by the relay WTRU. For example, a remote WTRU may receive an indication from the relay WTRU that a relayed connection cannot be established. Such indication may come in the form of a response to a PC5-RRC reconfiguration message (e.g., a reconfiguration failure). Such indication may come in the form of a PC5-RRC message or other protocol layer message initiated by the relay WTRU (e.g., a flow control message explicitly/implicitly indicating such; e.g., a PC5-RRC message broadcast by the relay WTRU indicating that the relay should not be accessed).; see [0192].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Martino with the teachings of Xu to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein receiving a connection request sent by a second remote terminal device being from a specific bearer during operation of the timer, wherein an RRC connection request message of the second remote terminal device is carried in the specific bearer; and sending, the notification message to the second remote terminal device without performing another access operation for the connection request; greater way more reliable connection can be carried out in the communication system.
But Xu in view of Martino teaches about remote UE sending a connection request to relay on specific bearer; see Martino [0147, 0211- 0213 and 0248], but fails to explicitly states about requesting during operation of the timer; however Kim states in Fig. 24 about barring or extended wait timer is running and eremote-UE (second remore UE here) send a request. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Xu in view of Martino to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 20, Xu teaches a terminal device, comprising; a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, through executing the instructions stored in the memory, causes the terminal device to perform the method according to claim 9; pls see claim 9’s recitations.
Regarding claim 21, Xu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform the method according to claim 1; pls see claim 1’s recitations.
Regarding claim 22, Xu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform the method according to claim 9; pls see claim 9’s recitations.
Claim(s) 6, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0180313 A1), hereafter Martino and in further view of Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0178343 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pat. No. 10932175 B2), hereafter Kim1.
Regarding claim 6, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 1, but Xu fails to state about, wherein
the access failure is failing to pass a UAC verification, and the timer is a prohibit timer; or
the access failure is receiving an RRC reject message or an RRC release message sent by a network device, and the timer is a T302 timer; however Kim1 teaches in col. 37 lines 25- 51 regarding the request for the connection to the network (BS) is rejected (or fails) due to low layer failure, radio link failure, or cell barring, the relay UE may transmit, to the remote UE, connection failure information indicating that the request for the connection for network connection/signaling transmission/data transmission from the remote UE has been rejected (has failed). …. The AS (RRC) of the remote UE may transmit the connection failure information, which indicates that transmission/connection has failed, to the NAS of the remote UE, and the NAS of the remote UE may not make an NAS signaling request for network connection/signaling transmission/data transmission until information indicating the alleviation of access barring is received from the AS (RRC) of the remote UE. Here, the remote UE may operate the barring timer using the value of the barring timer provided from the relay UE. When the barring timer expires, the AS (RRC) of the remote UE may report the alleviation of access barring to the NAS of the remote UE.. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Kim1 with the teachings of Xu in view of Martino and Kim to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism whereinthe access failure is failing to pass a UAC verification, and the timer is a prohibit timer; or
the access failure is receiving an RRC reject message or an RRC release message sent by a network device, and the timer is a T302 timer; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 23, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 1, but Xu fails to state about, wherein
failing to pass a unified access control (UAC) verification; or
receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device or receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device, wherein the RRC release message carries a wait timer; however Kim1 teaches in col. 37 lines 25- 51 regarding the request for the connection to the network (BS) is rejected (or fails) due to low layer failure, radio link failure, or cell barring, the relay UE may transmit, to the remote UE, connection failure information indicating that the request for the connection for network connection/signaling transmission/data transmission from the remote UE has been rejected (has failed). …. The AS (RRC) of the remote UE may transmit the connection failure information, which indicates that transmission/connection has failed, to the NAS of the remote UE, and the NAS of the remote UE may not make an NAS signaling request for network connection/signaling transmission/data transmission until information indicating the alleviation of access barring is received from the AS (RRC) of the remote UE. Here, the remote UE may operate the barring timer using the value of the barring timer provided from the relay UE. When the barring timer expires, the AS (RRC) of the remote UE may report the alleviation of access barring to the NAS of the remote UE.. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Kim1 with the teachings of Xu in view of Martino and Kim to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism failing to pass a unified access control (UAC) verification; or
receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device or receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device, wherein the RRC release message carries a wait timer; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim(s) 8, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0180313 A1), hereafter Martino and in further view of Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0178343 A1) and further in view of Han et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0385883 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether a connection request sent by the second remote terminal device is received during operation of the timer; and
sending, in response to the connection request sent by the second remote terminal device being received during the operation of the timer, the notification message to the second remote terminal device; here Xu teaches in Fig. 9 and [0104- 0105] about .. In 916, a second remote UE 904 may provide a RRC connection request to the relay UE 906. In 918, the relay UE 906 may provide a connection request to the gNB 908 on behalf of the second remote UE 904, e.g., including identification information for the second remote UE 904…; but Xu fails to state about specifically that during operation of the timer and sending response during the operation of the timer; however Han teaches in context with Fig. 4 and [0060- 0064] teaches in [0066] the second UE may start a third timer for receiving a unicast connection establishment message upon transmitting the unicast connection establishment request to the first UE. In the case that the second UE does not receive the unicast connection establishment message before the third timer expires, the second UE may retransmit the unicast connection establishment request to the first UE. In the case that the second UE receives the unicast connection establishment message before the third timer expires in step 408, the second UE may perform step 410. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Han with the teachings of Xu in view of Martino and Kim to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein during operation of the timer having receiving and sending operations, greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 8, Xu in view of Martino and Kim and Han teaches as per claim 24, wherein the determining whether the connection request sent by the second remote terminal device is received during the operation of the timer comprises:
determining, in response to receiving data sent by the second remote terminal device during the operation of the timer, whether the data sent by the second remote terminal device is from a specific bearer; and determining, in response to the data sent by the second remote terminal device being from the specific bearer, that the connection request sent by the second remote terminal device is received during the operation of the timer; Han Fig. 9 and [0104- 0105] about .. In 916, a second remote UE 904 may provide a RRC connection request to the relay UE 906. In 918, the relay UE 906 may provide a connection request to the gNB 908 on behalf of the second remote UE 904, e.g., including identification information for the second remote UE 904…; but fails to state about specifically that during operation of the timer and sending response during the operation of the timer; however Han teaches in context with Fig. 4 and [0060- 0064] teaches in [0066] the second UE may start a third timer for receiving a unicast connection establishment message upon transmitting the unicast connection establishment request to the first UE. In the case that the second UE does not receive the unicast connection establishment message before the third timer expires, the second UE may retransmit the unicast connection establishment request to the first UE. In the case that the second UE receives the unicast connection (i.e. as a specific bearer ) establishment message before the third timer expires in step 408, the second UE may perform step 410.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0180313 A1), hereafter Martino and in further view of Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0178343 A1) and further in view of Freda et al. (CN 115553058).
Regarding claim 14, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 13, but Xu fails state about further comprising:
performing, in response to starting the timer, one or more of:
prohibiting access during operation of the timer;
prohibiting access to a cell via the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer; or
prohibiting selecting the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer; however Freda teaches in pages 93- 94 about .. The remote WTRU may determine one or more access inhibition parameters for Uu access via the relay WTRU based on information provided by the relay WTRU. The access parameter may include one or more of the following items, and can be each associated with access identity provided by the upper layer: prohibiting access at a given time; prohibiting the value of the timer; selecting a random number to determine a range for prohibiting a timer or whether to allow access; access type; and/or the number of attempts prior to initiating an action associated with a failed access control, as described herein…It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Freda with the teachings of Xu in view of Martino and Kim to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0180313 A1), hereafter Martino and in further view of Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0178343 A1) and in further in view of Freda et al. (CN 115553058) and in further view of Freda et al. (WO 2021/207505 A1), hereafter Freda1.
Regarding claim 15, Xu in view of Martino and Kim teaches as per claim 13, but Xu fails state about, wherein the prohibiting the access to the cell via the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer comprises: prohibiting sending, to the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer, at least one of an RRC establishment request message or an RRC resume request message; or
prohibiting sending, to the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer, a message of a specific bearer; however Freda1 teaches in [0333- 0334] about …. A remote WTRU may determine one or more access barring parameters for Uu access via a relay WTRU based on information provided by the relay WTRU. The access parameters may include one or more of the following, and may each be associated with an access identity provide by upper layers: whether an access is barred at a given time; value of a barring timer; range over which to select a random number to determine the barring timer, or whether the access is allowed; the access category; and/or, the number of attempts before initiating an action associated with failed access control, as described herein. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Freda1 with the teachings of Xu in view of Martino and Kim to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the prohibiting the access to the cell via the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer comprises: prohibiting sending, to the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer, at least one of an RRC establishment request message or an RRC resume request message; or prohibiting sending, to the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer, a message of a specific bearer; greater way resources can be utilized/managed in the communication system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 form for considered prior arts for record.
Reference Back et al. US-12720635-B2 teaches about ….. performed by a first user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system comprises the steps of: monitoring phasing for a second UE in a first state; acquiring state information indicating that the state of the second UE has changed from the first state to a second state; and stopping the monitoring of the phasing for the second UE in the second state on the basis of the acquisition of the state information, wherein the first state includes at least one of an idle state or a nonactive state, and the second state includes a connected state; see abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. PST.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights