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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 11/25/2023 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 2 independent claims and 18 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Remarks
The claims are presented as follows:
Claims 1-38 are cancelled.
Claims 39-58 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 44-45, 47, 49, 53-57 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 42 recites the phrase “in a case where the Remote UE receives a notification…” This is not required in a situation that involves a different “case”. The claims contain “contingent limitations” see MPEP §2111.04(II).
Claim 43 recites the phrase “wherein in a case where the Remote UE receives a notification…” This is also contingent and not required in the BRI of this claim scope. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Claims 44 and 50 recite limitation for performing certain step(s) only if a specific condition is satisfied (IF Statement), the limitations followed this statement are considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met. Applicant should change the word “if’ to “responsive to determining that...” in order to alter an optional limitation to a required limitation. For the purpose of examination, claimed limitations will be considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until the specific conditions are met.
Claims 44-45, 47, 49, 53-57 have similar limitations and BRI issues. The entire scope of those additional limitations are optional and contain “contingent limitations” that are based upon their usage of contingent limitations, see MPEP §2111.04(II), Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 41, 43 and 49-50 are 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.
Regarding claim 41, It is unclear how claimed limitations would fit with base claim 40. Claim 41 requires the type of the target node to further be the type of the Relay node. It is unclear whether that implies the target node is the relay node, or the language are not actually switching based on the type of target, but instead the type of target. The limitations seem to be trying to overwrite some of the language from claim 40, which isn’t proper for a dependent claim.
Regarding claim 43, the language of the claim is limited to a contingent condition and the BRI of the claim does not include the functions reliant on the contingent, which makes the language of the claim functions conditional upon some case limitations. see MPEP §2111.04(II), Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 49-50 recite the phrase “Uu connection…” and “Uu traffic…” without a corresponding meaning to the “Uu”, which makes the limitation indefinite. Examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “Remote UE to core network through Relay UE (Uu) connection…” instead, for at least the first (Uu) claimed.
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.
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.
Claims 39-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. Publication No. (US 20240080658 A1) in view of XU et al. Publication No. (US 2021/0377842 A1).
Claims 1-38 (cancelled).
Regarding claim 39, Chen teaches a method at a Remote user equipment, UE (remote UE FIG.6), comprising:
obtaining a type of a Relay UE (obtaining an indication of relay UE that only supports L2 relay communication shown in FIG.6a, or an indication of relay UE that only supports L3 relay communication shown in FIG.6b, or a relay UE that supports both L2 and L3 relay communication FIG.6c), which at least comprises one of: a type of a Layer 2, L2, Relay UE, and a type of a Layer 3, L3, Relay UE (the remote UE receives an indication of L2 U2N relay indication and an L3 U2N indication from the relay UE that is broadcasted from the gNB [0052-54] FIG.6c) ; and
transmitting, to a network node (base station gNB FIG.7), report(s) of at least one Relay UE, wherein a report of each of the at least one Relay UE comprises an indication of the type of the Relay UE (sending relay indications for L2 and L3 relays to the gNB, the gNB checks the UE authorization for determining whether the relay UE is authorized for L2 or L3 relay communications, if the relay UE is capable of L3 relay, the gNB may send the Sidelink Tx resource configuration to UE. If the UE is capable of L2 relay, gNB may send the sidelink Tx resource configuration as well as the Uu RLC channel configuration to the relay UE. The Uu RLC channel can be used by the relay UE to forward the remote UE's SRB0/1/2/3 signaling to the gNB [0053-55] FIG.7).
Chen does not explicitly teach the remote UE transmitting the information in a “measurement report”.
XU teaches transmitting the relay information in a measurement report (XU: The gNB 610 configures the remote UE 614 to measure link quality of various links, including direct links and SL segments of indirect links. The remote UE sends the various link quality in a measurement report to the gNB 610 at 622 on a current link that the remote UE 614 is using for communications with the gNB [0068-69] FIG.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen by the teaching of XU to transmit the relay UEs types in a measurement report in order for the gNB to decide whether a new link is to be established and/or switch to a better quality link (XU: [0069] FIG.6).
Regarding claim 40, the modified Chen teaches the method of claim 39, further comprising: receiving, from the network node, a notification that the Remote UE should switch to a target node in a way depending on a type of the target node (XU: a gNB could send RRC or MAC-CE signaling to one or more relay UEs, a remote UE, or both, to indicate link or path switching [0083-84] FIG.6).
Regarding claim 41, Chen teaches the method of claim 40, wherein the type of the target node at least comprises one of: a type of a network node, and the type of the Relay UE (the gNB may send the Sidelink Tx resource configuration to UE if the relay UE is capable of L3 relay, or gNB may send the sidelink Tx resource configuration as well as the Uu RLC channel configuration to the relay UE If the UE is capable of L2 relay [0053-55] FIG.7).
Regarding claim 42, Chen teaches the method of claim 41, wherein in a case where the Remote UE receives a notification that the Remote UE should switch to a target network node or an L2 Relay UE that is determined by the network node, the method further comprises: switching to the target network node or the L2 Relay UE that is determined by the network node (the gNB may send the Sidelink Tx resource configuration to UE if the relay UE is capable of L3 relay, or gNB may send the sidelink Tx resource configuration as well as the Uu RLC channel configuration to the relay UE If the UE is capable of L2 relay. The Uu RLC channel can be used by the relay UE to forward the remote UE's SRB0/1/2/3 signaling to the gNB [0053-55] FIG.7).
Regarding claim 43, Chen teaches the method of claim 41, wherein in a case where the Remote UE receives a notification that the Remote UE should switch to an L3 Relay UE, the notification further comprises: a list of one or more L3 Relay UEs selected by the network node, and wherein the method further comprises: selecting, from the list of the one or more selected L3 Relay UEs, an L3 Relay UE for path switching; and switching to the selected L3 Relay UE (For Uu radio link failure (“RLF”) handover (“HO”), when Uu RLF is detected by the relay UE, the relay UE may send a PC5-S message to its connected remote UE and this message may trigger relay reselection. In another example, considering that the relay UE may recover the Uu link with the base station, it may not be necessary for the remote UE to re-select another relay UE or switch to Uu link immediately, especially for RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UEs which have no ongoing data transmission. The potential handling of the remote UE upon Uu RLF can be divided into RRC_CONNECTED remote UE and RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE [0094-95] FIG.10).
Regarding claim 44, Chen teaches the method of claim 41, wherein in a case where the Remote UE receives a notification that the Remote UE should switch to an L3 Relay UE, the notification further comprises: a list of one or more L3 Relay UEs recommended by the network node, and wherein the method further comprises: selecting, from the list of the one or more recommended L3 Relay UEs, an L3 Relay UE for path switching; selecting, from one or more available L3 Relay UEs that are known by the Remote UE but not in the list, an L3 Relay UE for path switching, if the path switching cannot be performed successfully to any of the L3 Relay UEs in the list; and switching to the selected L3 Relay UE (For Uu radio link failure (“RLF”) handover (“HO”), when Uu RLF is detected by the relay UE, the relay UE may send a PC5-S message to its connected remote UE and this message may trigger relay reselection. In another example, considering that the relay UE may recover the Uu link with the base station, it may not be necessary for the remote UE to re-select another relay UE or switch to Uu link immediately, especially for RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UEs which have no ongoing data transmission. The potential handling of the remote UE upon Uu RLF can be divided into RRC_CONNECTED remote UE and RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE [0094-95] FIG.10).
Regarding claim 45, Chen teaches the method of claim 41, wherein in a case where the Remote UE receives a notification that the Remote UE should switch to an L3 Relay UE directly, or by receiving a notification that the Remote UE should not switch to a network node or an L2 Relay UE, the method further comprises: selecting, from one or more available L3 Relay UEs that are known by the Remote UE, an L3 Relay UE for path switching; and switching to the selected L3 Relay UE (For Uu radio link failure (“RLF”) handover (“HO”), when Uu RLF is detected by the relay UE, the relay UE may send a PC5-S message to its connected remote UE and this message may trigger relay reselection. In another example, considering that the relay UE may recover the Uu link with the base station, it may not be necessary for the remote UE to re-select another relay UE or switch to Uu link immediately, especially for RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UEs which have no ongoing data transmission. The potential handling of the remote UE upon Uu RLF can be divided into RRC_CONNECTED remote UE and RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE [0094-95] FIG.10).
Regarding claim 46, Chen teaches the method of claim 39, wherein the indication of the type of the Relay UE is implemented by an indicator on the type of the Relay UE (the base station may broadcast the relay indication type supported by the base station through a system information block (“SIB”) [0050-52] FIG.6).
Regarding claim 47, Chen teaches the method of claim 39, wherein in a case where the Relay UE is an L3 Relay UE, the indication of the type of the Relay UE is implemented by one of: setting a UE ID of the Relay UE to a specific value, not including a UE ID of the Relay UE in the measurement report of the Relay UE, setting a serving cell ID related to the Relay UE to a specific value, and not including a serving cell ID related to the Relay UE in the measurement report of the Relay UE (the local remote UE ID may be configured to the remote UE through a Uu RRC or PC5 RRC message. The remote UE sends the relay service code in the L2 link establishment message, which may be used by the relay UE to identify the access of the L2 or L3 remote UE. Alternatively, if the L2 relay UE ID is different for L2 or L3 relay, the L2 relay UE ID may be used to identify whether the L2 or L3 remote UE accesses the relay [0059-61] FIG.9c)
Regarding claim 48, Chen teaches the method of claim 40, wherein the notification is received in a Radio Resource Control, RRC, message, which comprises at least one of: an RRC Release message, or an RRC Reconfiguration message (the base station can assign the cell-specific remote UE ID (e.g. C-RNTI 16 bit) to the remote UE via Uu RRC Reconfiguration/RRC-Setup message [0092-95]).
Regarding claim 49, Chen teaches the method of claim 48, wherein in a case where the notification is received from the network node in the RRC Reconfiguration message, the method further comprises: transmitting, to the network node, a notification whether the path switching to the selected L3 Relay UE is successful or not; receiving, from the network node, the RRC Release message in a case of transmitting a notification that the path switching to the selected L3 Relay UE is successful; and releasing, based on the received RRC Release message, at least one of: a Uu connection between the Remote UE and the network node, a sidelink logic channel that carries relayed Uu traffic, or a PC5 link to a Relay UE (For Uu radio link failure (“RLF”) handover (“HO”), when Uu RLF is detected by the relay UE, the relay UE may send a PC5-S message to its connected remote UE and this message may trigger relay reselection. In another example, considering that the relay UE may recover the Uu link with the base station, it may not be necessary for the remote UE to re-select another relay UE or switch to Uu link immediately, especially for RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UEs which have no ongoing data transmission. The potential handling of the remote UE upon Uu RLF can be divided into RRC_CONNECTED remote UE and RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE [0094-95] FIG.10).
Regarding claim 50, Chen teaches the method of claim 43, further comprising: transmitting a request message for link establishment to the selected L3 Relay UE, if the Remote UE does not have a PC5 link with the selected L3 Relay UE, wherein the request message for link establishment comprises an establishment cause indicating that a link is established for a relaying purpose; Filed: April 29, 2022 transmitting, to the selected L3 Relay UE, a notification that the Remote UE has Uu traffic to be relayed, if the Remote UE has a PC5 link with the selected L3 Relay UE (For Uu radio link failure (“RLF”) handover (“HO”), when Uu RLF is detected by the relay UE, the relay UE may send a PC5-S message to its connected remote UE and this message may trigger relay reselection. In another example, considering that the relay UE may recover the Uu link with the base station, it may not be necessary for the remote UE to re-select another relay UE or switch to Uu link immediately, especially for RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UEs which have no ongoing data transmission. The potential handling of the remote UE upon Uu RLF can be divided into RRC_CONNECTED remote UE and RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE remote UE [0094-95] FIG.10).
Regarding claims 51-58 the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-50, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “network node” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations, for example, claim 51 is a combination of claims 39 and 40. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system? Contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472