DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 02/05/2024.
Claims 19-33 are pending.
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
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 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 19, 21, 26-27, 29, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Hampel et al. (US 2020/0092784) in view of PARK et al. (US 2022/0159625).
Regarding claim 19, Hampel discloses a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) associated with a second WTRU [see Fig. 1, ¶ 50; a UE 115 may also be able to communicate directly with other UEs 115], the first WTRU comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive an indication of a threshold [see ¶ 103; receive an indication of a threshold by the relay device determine that performance metric of the wireless link between the relay device and the upstream a call device has deteriorated to the point where it fails to satisfy a threshold level];
determine a number of hops from the first WTRU to a network [see ¶¶ 81-84, 103; determine a number of hops from the first WTRU/ UE 215 to a network/base station 205]; and
send a radio link failure (RLF) indication to the second WTRU [see Fig. 4C, ¶¶ 86, 122; transmit a first indication of the upstream RLF over the wireless link between relay device 405-d and relay device 405-e],
wherein a type of the RLF indication is determined based on the threshold and a value [see ¶ 140; determine whether an RLF is observed on an upstream backhaul link or if a BH-RLF-alert message has been received],
wherein the value is based on one or more of a logical channel weight or the number of hops from the first WTRU to the network [see ¶ 140; an RLF event may be considered to occur based on a beam management failure for the upstream wireless link, based on an out-of-synchronization condition for an upstream wireless link, based on the channel performance metric of the upstream wireless link failing to satisfy a threshold], and
Although, Hampel discloses all aspect set forth above, Hampel does not explicitly disclose wherein the type of the RLF indication is a first type RLF indication or a second type RLF indication.
However, PARK discloses wherein a type of the RLF indication is determined based on the threshold and a value [¶¶ 384-385, Proposal 1, wherein the RLF indication indicating RLF detection based on the threshold and a value].
wherein the type of the RLF indication is a first type RLF indication or a second type RLF indication [see ¶ 411; wherein a resource allocation mode indication indicating whether the first UE operates in resource allocation mode 1 or resource allocation mode 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the type of the RLF indication is a first type RLF indication or a second type RLF indication” as taught by PARK in the system of Hampel, so that it would provide enhanced mobile broadband communication relative to existing RATs; for which services or UEs sensitive to reliability and latency [see PARK; ¶ 18].
Regarding claim 21, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the first WTRU of claim 19.
Hampel further discloses wherein the first type RLF indication indicates to remain connected to a sidelink (SL) associated with the first WTRU [¶¶ 40, 101, 116, 124; the relay device may then establish a third wireless link with a second upstream backhaul device and provide multiple-access services to downstream device(s); that is, the multiple-access services may be provided based on backhaul communications between the relay device and the second upstream backhaul device over the third wireless link].
Regarding claim 26, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the first WTRU of claim 19.
Hampel further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine that an RLF has occurred [¶ 87; wherein the processor is further configured to determine that an RLF has occurred].
Regarding claim 27, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the first WTRU of claim 19.
Hampel further discloses wherein the first WTRU comprises a relay WTRU, and wherein the second WTRU comprises a remote WTRU [¶ 122; wherein the first WTRU comprises a relay WTRU, and wherein the second WTRU comprises a remote WTRU].
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites a method of a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) associated with a second WTRU to perform the functions of the first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) associated with a second WTRU recited as in claim 19; therefore, claim 29 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 19.
Regarding claim 32, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the method of claim 29.
Hampel further discloses wherein the method further comprises determining that an RLF has occurred [¶ 87; wherein the processor is further configured to determine that an RLF has occurred].
Regarding claim 33, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the method of claim 29.
Hampel further discloses wherein the first WTRU comprises a relay WTRU, and wherein the second WTRU comprises a remote WTRU [¶ 122; wherein the first WTRU comprises a relay WTRU, and wherein the second WTRU comprises a remote WTRU].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Hampel et al. (US 2020/0092784) in view of PARK et al. (US 2022/0159625), and further in view of ZHANG et al. (US 2014/0171083).
Regarding claim 20, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the first type RLF indication if the value is greater than the threshold.
However, ZHANG discloses wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the first type RLF indication if the value is greater than the threshold [see ¶ 121; when a quantity of radio link failure indication messages or handover report messages corresponding to any type exceeds the set threshold].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the first type RLF indication if the value is greater than the threshold” as taught by ZHANG in the combined system of Hampel and PARK, so that it would to perform a lot of outdoor tests, data collection, and statistical analyses to determine proper values of these control parameters beforehand, and is incapable of automatically adjusting the mobility control parameter used by the terminal [see ZHANG; ¶ 19].
Claims 22-23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Hampel et al. (US 2020/0092784) in view of PARK et al. (US 2022/0159625), and further in view of LIANG et al. (US 2022/0167240).
Regarding claim 22, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the second type RLF indication if the value is less than the threshold.
However, LIANG discloses wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the second type RLF indication if the value is less than the threshold [see ¶ 4; wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the second type RLF indication if the value is less than the threshold].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the second type RLF indication if the value is less than the threshold” as taught by LIANG in the combined system of Hampel and PARK, so that it would use to expand cell coverage to make up for blind spots in cell coverage, and also increase a cell capacity through spatial resource multiplexing, and for indoor coverage, the relay technology can also overcome penetration loss and improve the quality of indoor coverage [see LIANG; ¶ 4].
Regarding claim 23, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second type RLF indication indicates to perform a reselection.
However, LIANG discloses wherein the second type RLF indication indicates to perform a reselection [see ¶¶ 89, 127; wherein the second type RLF indication indicates to perform a reselection].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the second type RLF indication indicates to perform a reselection” as taught by LIANG in the combined system of Hampel and PARK, so that it would use to expand cell coverage to make up for blind spots in cell coverage, and also increase a cell capacity through spatial resource multiplexing, and for indoor coverage, the relay technology can also overcome penetration loss and improve the quality of indoor coverage [see LIANG; ¶ 4].
Regarding claim 30, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the method of claim 29, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the second type RLF indication if the value is less than the threshold, and wherein the second type RLF indication indicates to perform a reselection.
However, LIANG discloses wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the second type RLF indication if the value is less than the threshold [see ¶ 4; wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the second type RLF indication if the value is less than the threshold], and wherein the second type RLF indication indicates to perform a reselection [see ¶¶ 89, 127; wherein the second type RLF indication indicates to perform a reselection].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the type of the RLF indication is determined to be the second type RLF indication if the value is less than the threshold, and wherein the second type RLF indication indicates to perform a reselection” as taught by LIANG in the combined system of Hampel and PARK, so that it would use to expand cell coverage to make up for blind spots in cell coverage, and also increase a cell capacity through spatial resource multiplexing, and for indoor coverage, the relay technology can also overcome penetration loss and improve the quality of indoor coverage [see LIANG; ¶ 4].
Claims 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Hampel et al. (US 2020/0092784) in view of PARK et al. (US 2022/0159625), and further in view of ZHANG et al. (US 2023/0180097).
Regarding claim 28, the combined system of Hampel and PARK discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the value is based on the logical channel weight and the number of hops from the first WTRU to the network.
However, ZHANG discloses wherein the value is based on the logical channel weight and the number of hops from the first WTRU to the network [see ¶¶ 111-112; wherein the value is based on the logical channel weight and the number of hops from the first WTRU to the network].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the value is based on the logical channel weight and the number of hops from the first WTRU to the network” as taught by ZHANG in the combined system of Hampel and PARK, so that it would to facilitate the enablement of different data services and requirements [see ZHANG; ¶ 3].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 25, and 31 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 base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, LEE et al. (US 2022/0201731) and ZHANG et al. (US 2023/0180097) are also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 1, 11, 12, and 20 (See LEE ¶¶ 334, 355 and ZHANG; Figs. 4, ¶¶ 101-112).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights