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 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.
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Publication 2023/0023135 A1) further in view of Kang et al. (KR 20220043715 A).
In regards to claims 11 and 14, Liu (US Publication 2023/0023135 A1) teaches, a User equipment (UE), comprising: a processor (see figure 10, terminal 100, processor); and a memory in electronic communication with the processor (see figure 10, terminal 100, memory 109), the UE is a remote UE (see remote terminal 60 in figure 6) the memory stores instructions that when, executed by the processor, cause the UE to: apply, upon initiating a Radio Resource Control (RRC) establishment procedure, a default configuration used for a Radio Link Control (RLC) bearer to transmit a Signaling Radio Bearer 0 (SRBO) message via a relay UE (see figure 6, relay terminal; see paragraph 129; a sidelink RLC bearer is established between the relay terminal and the remote terminal, so that the relay terminal can receive the Uu signaling from the remote terminal by using the sidelink RLC bearer, and forward the Uu signaling to the network-side device by using the first Uu RLC bearer; or the relay terminal receives the Uu signaling sent by the network-side device by using the first Uu RLC bearer, and forwards the Uu signaling to the remote terminal by using the sidelink RLC bearer, so as to implement Uu signaling transmission between the remote terminal and the network-side device; see paragraph 133; configure sidelink RLC bearers corresponding to SRB0 and SRB1 respectively for transmission of the Uu RRC signaling and NAS signaling of the remote terminal on the PC5 interface. A DRB used for signaling transmission uses the AM transmission mode, an SN configuration that is the same as the SN length of the SRB, and the like. The DRB can use a default configuration (which may be the same as the default SRB configuration) or a specified configuration), wherein the default configuration includes a configuration of an RLC mode, a value of logical channel and a value of priority (see paragraph 201; The configuration information of the first sidelink RLC bearer includes: RLC configuration and MAC configuration, where the MAC configuration includes at least one of the following: logical channel identifier, logical channel priority, and prioritized bit rate; see paragraph 133; The DRB can use a default configuration (which may be the same as the default SRB configuration) or a specified configuration; see paragraph 134; SRB information can be identified directly based on different RLC bearer ID ranges or logical channel identifier (LCD) ranges. If both the SRB RLC bearer and the DRB RLC bearer belong to a same range, signaling can be preferentially transmitted by configuring a higher priority and an infinite PBR).
In further regards to claims 11 and 14, Liu fails to teach, the default configuration including a logical channel group and the logical channel group being group 0.
Kang et al. (KR 20220043715 A) teaches the default configuration including a logical channel group and the logical channel group being group 0 (see the attached section from the Kang reference; i. the default configuration including a logical channel group and the logical channel group being group 0; iv. The logical channel groups of SL-SRB-M and SL-SRB-N may be set to the same value. For example, the logical channel group of SL-SRB-M and SL-SRB-N may be set to LCG0).
Kang and Liu both relate to sidelink management between a remote UE and a relay UE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the LCG ID as taught by Kang into the configuration information of Liu. The motivation to do so would be to provide structured and efficient traffic management and QoS assurance by grouping logical channels with similar requirements.
In regards to claim 12, Liu teaches, wherein the instructions when executed by the processor, further cause the UE to: apply, upon initiating an RRC connection resume procedure (see paragraph 98; The first relay request is sent through first uplink signaling after RRC connection resume is completed), the default configuration used for the RLC bearer to transmit the SRB0 message via the relay UE (see relay terminal in figure 6; see paragraph 133; configure sidelink RLC bearers corresponding to SRB0).
In regards to claim 13, Liu teaches, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the UE to: apply, upon initiating an RRC connection reestablishment procedure (see paragraph 99; After the RRC connection resume is completed, in a case that the first relay request is sent through the first uplink signaling, the first uplink signaling may be reused existing uplink signaling or may be new uplink signaling), the default configuration used for the RLC bearer to transmit the SRB0 message via the relay UE (see paragraph 100; perform basic relay function signaling bearer or default data bearer configuration).
Response to Arguments
Some of the applicant's arguments with respect to the Liu reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For example, the applicant argues on page 6 “in Liu, the remote terminal configures that RLC based on the “configuration information of a first sidelink RLC bearer” received from the base station, which is different from what is recited.”
Liu in figure 6, step 63, the configuration information is sent to the Remote terminal from the relay terminal and not from the base station directly.
The additional arguments with respect to the Liu 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.
Relevant Prior Art
Prior art Kim (US Publication 2018/0279403 A1) teaches, with respect to logical channel group, “Regarding the LCG ID for discriminating LCG, the LCG ID may be restricted to be configured by only a macro base station when configuration or reconfiguration of multiple connectivity is carried out. Also, in case that the LCG is provided by only a specific base station in the multiple connectivity configuration, in order for the terminal to identify the LCG ID and the base station providing it, related control information may be included in the control message for configuration or reconfiguration of multiple connectivity, or an additional control message may be used for reporting to the terminal” (see paragraph 687).
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 JAY P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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.
/JAY P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights