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 .
This office action is in response to Pre-Amendment filed on Jan. 17, 2024.
Claims 8, 10-11 and 23-24 have been amended.
Claims 12-22 and 25 have been canceled.
New claims 26-32 have been added.
Drawings
The drawings filed Jan. 17, 2024 have been approved by Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025, 11/11/2024, 01/17/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1-11 and 26-27 are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example receiving a message, storing data in the message, determining a call type and sending an indication of the call type to a second component. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such. The method claim 1 recites limitations, " A relay determination method, performed by a terminal device, comprising: determining a relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to state information of the terminal device; and determining a relay terminal device of the terminal device according to the relay determination strategy.".
Since the claim is directed to a method, i.e., process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites “relay determination method, performed by a terminal device, comprising: determining a relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to state information of the terminal device; and determining a relay terminal device of the terminal device according to the relay determination strategy”.
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, reply on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application; improving the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the current scenario there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 23-24, 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Basu Mallick et al. (2024/0147,427).
Regarding claims 1 and 23-24, Basu Mallick discloses a relay determination method, performed by a terminal device (see abstract, fig.1, elements 102s, fig.2, elements 202, 210/212, paragraphs [0011], [0043-0045], fig.4, element 402, paragraphs [0010], [0041], [0064] and its description), comprising: determining a relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to state information of the terminal device (see abstract, fig.2, elements 202, 210/212, paragraphs [0011], [0041-0045], [0050], fig.4, element 402, paragraphs [0013], [0064-0066] and its description); and determining a relay terminal device of the terminal device according to the relay determination strategy (see abstract, fig.2, elements 202, 210/212, paragraphs [0011], [0041-0045], [0050], fig.4, elements 402, 404, paragraph [0013], [0064-0067] and its description).
Regarding claims 2 , 28 and 31, Basu Mallick further discloses wherein determining the relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to the state information of the terminal device comprises: determining that the relay determination strategy is that a serving cell of the relay terminal device is consistent with a serving cell of the terminal device, and the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in a connected state; or determining that the relay determination strategy is that the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion and a first preference criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in a connected state, wherein the first preference criterion represents that a terminal device whose corresponding serving cell is consistent with a serving cell of the terminal device is preferentially selected as the relay terminal device. (see abstract, fig.5, elements 504, 502, 506, paragraphs [0014], [0068-0069] and its description).
Regarding claim 3, 29 and 32, Basu Mallick further discloses wherein determining the relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to the state information of the terminal device comprises: determining that the relay determination strategy is that a serving cell of the relay terminal device is consistent with a serving cell of the terminal device, and the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in a connected state and the terminal device is connected with a network device via a relay device; or determining that the relay determination strategy is that the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion and a first preference criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in a connected state and the terminal device is a remote terminal device, wherein the first preference criterion represents that a terminal device whose corresponding serving cell is consistent with a serving cell of the terminal device is preferentially selected as the relay terminal device (see abstract, fig.5, elements 504, 502, 506, paragraphs [0014], [0068-0069] and its description).
Regarding claims 4 and 30, Basu Mallick further discloses wherein determining the relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to the state information of the terminal device comprises: determining that the relay determination strategy is that the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device in a connected state and the terminal device is not connected with a network device via a relay device (see abstract, fig.1, elements 102, 104, paragraphs [0010], [0035-0036] and its description).
Regarding claim 5, Basu Mallick further discloses wherein determining the relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to the state information of the terminal device comprises: determining that the relay determination strategy is that a serving cell of the relay terminal device is in a same radio access network (RAN) area as a serving cell of the terminal device, and the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in an inactive state; or determining that the relay determination strategy is that the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion and a second preference criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in an inactive state, wherein the second preference criterion represents that a terminal device whose corresponding serving cell is in a same RAN area as a serving cell of the terminal device is preferentially selected as the relay terminal device (see abstract, fig.4, elements 402, 404, 406, fig.5, elements 504, 502, 506, paragraphs [0013-0014], [0063-0069] and descriptions).
Regarding claim 6, Basu Mallick further discloses wherein determining the relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to the state information of the terminal device comprises: determining that the relay determination strategy is that the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in an idle state (see abstract, fig.4, elements 402, 404, fig.5, element 502, 504 paragraphs [0059], [0065], [0072-0073] and its description).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al. (2024/0147,427) in view of Cai et al. (2024/0049327)
Regarding claim 7, Basu Mallick discloses all subject matter described above, except for the terminal device is in a radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment process. However, Cai discloses a communication method and apparatus including wherein determining the relay determination strategy of the terminal device according to the state information of the terminal device comprises: determining that the relay determination strategy is that a serving cell of the relay terminal device is consistent with a serving cell of the terminal device, and the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in a radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment process or a RRC recovery process; or determining that the relay determination strategy is that the relay terminal device satisfies a specified criterion and a first preference criterion, in response to the state information being that the terminal device is in a RRC reestablishment process or a RRC recovery process, wherein the first preference criterion represents that a terminal device whose corresponding serving cell is consistent with a serving cell of the terminal device is preferentially selected as the relay terminal device (see abstract, fig.1, fig.4, steps S401-S403, paragraphs [0112-0118], [0123], [0141] and its description). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use Cai’s radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment process in order to activate the connection when a User Equipment (UE) needs to reestablish its RRC connection with the network after a connection loss.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, and 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the baseclaim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 8-11 and 26-27, Basu Mallick and Cai disclose all the subject matters above. However, Basu Mallick and Cai fail to explicitly or implicitly teach or disclose all the limitations cited in depended claims 8-11 and 26-27.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20230422144-A1
US-20220159757-A1
US-20240179726-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CongVan Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-7871. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Th.
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, Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
125
125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
/CONGVAN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647