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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 7 March 2024, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 14 and 17 are amended.
Claim 16 is canceled.
Claims 18-21 are newly added.
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 26 August 2024 and 18 February 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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: information of the relay UE; information of the remote UE; identification information of a serving cell; time information; measurement information; cause information; type information corresponding to the communication process; a condition for triggering a successful handover report.” As such, the Office interprets this phrase to comprise an alternative limitation, where prior art teaching any of the respective information options (either alone or in combination with others) meets the claimed “first relevant information.” As set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the “first relevant information” in the independent claims are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 3, 18 and 20 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 3, independent Claim 1 recites “identification information of a serving cell” and Claim 3 further recites “identification information of the relay UE.” Therefore, it is unclear to what “the identification information” in line 3 refers. As such, the scope of Claim 3 is indefinite. Claim 20 (dependent on Claim 15) recites similar language and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18, independent Claim 1 recites “identification information of a serving cell” and parent claim 4 recites “identification information of the remote UE.” Therefore, it is unclear to what “the identification information” in line 2 refers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-13, 15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Damnjanovic et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0289580), hereinafter Damnjanovic.
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 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);
identification information of a serving cell (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
time information (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);
a condition for triggering a successful handover report (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
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 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.
Regarding Claim 13, 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 (identification information of the serving cell) in the independent claim; therefore, the BRI does not require the additional features of Claim 13. Accordingly, this claim is also anticipated by Damnjanovic.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic in view of Paladugu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0416881), hereinafter Paladugu. Damnjanovic discloses the limitations of Claim 3, as described above. However, Damnjanovic does 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Orsino et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0389106) discloses detection of radio link failure in a relay path by a remote UE (refer to paragraphs 0303-0304).
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