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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 14 May 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 3, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are amended.
Claim 16 is canceled.
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 3, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-13, 15 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), as well as the rejection of Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103, are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 15 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 Interpretation
Independent claims 1, 15 and 17 recite the claim language (emphasis added by the Office) “wherein the first relevant information comprises one or more of the following: identification information of a serving cell; time information; a condition for triggering a successful handover report” and “the first relevant information further comprises one or more of the following: information of the relay UE; information of the remote UE; measurement information; cause information; type information corresponding to the communication process.” As such, the Office interprets these phrases to comprise alternative limitations, where prior art teaching any of the respective information options, in the “information comprises” and “information further comprises” clauses, (either alone or in combination with others) meets the claimed “first relevant information.” As set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the “first relevant information” (either in the “comprises” or “further comprises” clause) in the independent claims are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13, 15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0289580), hereinafter Damnjanovic, in view of Ji et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0031877), hereinafter Ji.
Regarding Claim 15, Damnjanovic discloses an information transmitting apparatus (Figure 3 and paragraphs 0053-0060 – UE 350), comprising
a memory (Figure 3 and paragraph 0054 – memory 360), a transceiver (Figure 3 and paragraphs 0053-0056 – transceivers 354) and a processor (Figure 3 and paragraph 0054 – controller/processor 359), wherein
the memory is configured to store program instructions (paragraph 0054 – memory 360 stores program codes);
the transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data under control of the processor (paragraph 0053 – the controller/processor 359 implements layer 3 and layer 2 functionality for the transceivers which perform layer 1 processing (via respective Rx and Tx processors); and
the processor is configured to read the program instructions from the memory (paragraph 0054 – controller/processor 359 is associated with the memory 360 that stores program codes and data);
the transceiver is configured to:
obtain first relevant information generated during a communication process (paragraph 0080 – a remote UE obtains a measured channel quality between the remote UE and the relay UE); and
transmit the first relevant information to a network-side device, wherein the communication process comprises a process in which a remote UE communicates with the network-side device through a relay UE (Figure 4 and paragraph 0067 – wireless relaying between a remote UE 402 (connected via dual connectivity via the relay UE to the base station), relay UE 406 (connected via PC5 interface to remote UE), and base station 404; Figure 6 at step 618 and paragraph 0080 – the remote UE transmits a sidelink measurement report to the base station),
wherein the first relevant information further comprises one or more of the following:
information of the relay UE (paragraph 0080 – the sidelink measurement report may include the relay UE’s identifier);
information of the remote UE (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
measurement information (paragraph 0080 – the sidelink measurement report corresponds to a measured channel quality (e.g., RSRP) between the remote UE and the relay UE);
cause information (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
type information corresponding to the communication process (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
However, Damnjanovic does not disclose wherein the first relevant information comprises one or more of the following: identification information of a serving cell; time information; a condition for triggering a successful handover report.
In an analogous art, Ji discloses the first relevant information comprises identification information of a serving cell, noting that time information and a condition for triggering a successful handover report are claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation. Specifically, Ji discloses a UE reporting UE identities of relay mobile device candidates along with corresponding serving cell IDs (paragraph 0189). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Damnjanovic and Ji. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a remote UE with a relatively bad radio condition, either due to being out-of-coverage or in a coverage hole, to have improved communications with the network (refer to paragraph 0003 of Ji).
Claim 1 is a method comprising the same steps performed by the information transmitting apparatus of Claim 15. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 15.
Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory processor readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory processor readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program is configured to cause a processor to execute the same steps as the information transmitting apparatus of Claim 15. Damnjanovic discloses a non-transitory processor readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory processor readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program is configured to cause a processor to execute the obtaining and transmitting steps, as shown in Figure 3 and paragraph 0054 (controller/processor 359 is associated with the memory 360 that stores program codes and data). The remaining steps are rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 15.
Regarding Claims 2 and 19, Damnjanovic discloses the communication process comprises one or more of the following:
a connection establishment procedure (Figure 6 at step 614 and paragraph 0079 – the relay UE and remote UE establish direct communication (e.g., a PC5 connection) with each other);
a connection resumption procedure (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
a radio link failure procedure (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
a handover procedure (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claims 3 and 20, Damnjanovic discloses the information of the relay UE comprises:
identification information of the relay UE (paragraph 0080 – the sidelink measurement report may include the relay UE’s identifier); and/or,
a correspondence between the identification information and a specified event (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and/or,
location information of the relay UE (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
wherein the specified event comprises at least one of the following events:
a connection establishment (Figure 6 at step 614 and paragraph 0079 – the relay UE and remote UE establish direct communication (e.g., a PC5 connection) with each other);
a radio link failure (RLF) being detected (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
a handover failure (HOF) being detected (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
a handover (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
reverting back to a connection after a connection failure or a re-establishment failure (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
a re-establishment after a connection failure (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
attempting to establish a PC5 connection after an RLF occurs to the remote UE, where the RLF comprises a PC5 RLF or a Uu RLF (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
attempting to establish a PC5 connection after an HOF occurs to the remote UE (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 6, Damnjanovic discloses the measurement information comprises one or more of the following:
a PC5 measurement result of the remote UE (paragraphs 0077 and 0080 – the sidelink (i.e., PC5) measurement report corresponds to a measured channel quality (e.g., RSRP) between the remote UE and the relay UE);
a measurement result of a PC5 connection between the remote UE and the relay UE that establishes the PC5 connection with the remote UE (paragraphs 0077 and 0080 – the sidelink (i.e., PC5) measurement report corresponds to a measured channel quality (e.g., RSRP) between the remote UE and the relay UE);
a Uu link measurement result of the remote UE (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
a PC5 measurement result of the relay UE (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
a measurement result of a PC5 connection between the relay UE and the remote UE that establishes the PC5 connection with the relay UE (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
a Uu link measurement result of the relay UE (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Damnjanovic and Ji discloses the identification information of the serving cell comprises one or more of the following: identification information of a source cell in a last handover (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); identification information of a serving cell of a remote UE before a last handover in case that a connection before the handover is a PC5 connection (Ji at Figures 5a-5b paragraphs 0189-0209 - BS1 may check the UE-capability information of the relay mobile device candidate(s). In case UE1 reported the UE identity of the relay mobile device candidate(s) along with the corresponding serving cell ID in the last step, BS1 may interact with other network nodes (i.e. the network node where the UE-capability information is stored) to get the UE-capability information by using the identity in order to allow the UE to perform a relay selection (at step 9) or relay reselection (between steps 12 and 13 depicted in Figure 5b); Ji at paragraph 0156 and Figure 1 – the mobile devices are connected to one another via PC5 interfaces); identification information of a serving cell of a remote UE that detects an RLF (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); identification information of a serving cell of a remote UE that detects an HOF (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); identification information of a serving cell of a remote UE that reverts back to a connection after a connection failure (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); identification information of a serving cell of a remote UE that reverts back to a connection after a re-establishment failure (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Damnjanovic and Ji. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a remote UE with a relatively bad radio condition, either due to being out-of-coverage or in a coverage hole, to have improved communications with the network (refer to paragraph 0003 of Ji).
Regarding Claims 4 and 21, Damnjanovic discloses the features of Claims 1 and 15, as described above. As noted in the “Claim Interpretation” section, these claims further limit a non-selected alternative (information of the remote UE) in the independent claims; therefore, the BRI does not require the additional features of Claims 4 and 21. Accordingly, these claims are also anticipated by Damnjanovic. Claim 18 depends on Claim 4, and further limits the non-selected option in Claim 4 (as the information of the remote UE is not selected in Claim 1). Therefore, Damnjanovic anticipates Claim 18 as well.
Regarding Claim 5, Damnjanovic discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above. As noted in the “Claim Interpretation” section, these claims further limit a non-selected alternative (time information) in the independent claim; therefore, the BRI does not require the additional features of Claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is also anticipated by Damnjanovic.
Regarding Claim 7, Damnjanovic discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above. As noted in the “Claim Interpretation” section, these claims further limit a non-selected alternative (cause information) in the independent claim; therefore, the BRI does not require the additional features of Claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is also anticipated by Damnjanovic.
Regarding Claims 8-10, Damnjanovic discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above. Further, Damnjanovic anticipates Claim 7, as described above. Claims 8-10 further limit non-selected options in Claim 7 (as the cause information is not selected in Claim 1). Therefore, the BRI does not require the additional features of Claims 8-10. Accordingly, these claims are also anticipated by Damnjanovic.
Regarding Claim 11, Damnjanovic discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above. As noted in the “Claim Interpretation” section, these claims further limit a non-selected alternative (type information corresponding to the communication process) in the independent claim; therefore, the BRI does not require the additional features of Claim 11. Accordingly, this claim is also anticipated by Damnjanovic.
Regarding Claim 12, Damnjanovic discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above. As noted in the “Claim Interpretation” section, these claims further limit a non-selected alternative (condition for triggering the successful handover report) in the independent claim; therefore, the BRI does not require the additional features of Claim 12. Accordingly, this claim is also anticipated by Damnjanovic.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic in view of Ji, as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Paladugu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0416881), hereinafter Paladugu. The combination of Damnjanovic and Ji discloses the limitations of Claim 3, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the identification information comprises one or more of the following: cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI); an identifier of layer 2. In an analogous art, Paladugu discloses this. Specifically, Paladugu discloses a remote node sending a measurement report comprising a radio access identifier of the relay node, such as a C-RNTI (paragraph 0077), therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Damnjanovic / Ji and Paladugu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support mobility for the remote UE (see paragraph 0077 of Paladugu).
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights