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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s response filed on 05/07/2026. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10 and 14-20 are currently presented in the instant application. Claims 2, 4-6, 8 and 11-13 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 9-10 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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 14-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 3, 7 and 9-10, drawn to performed by a remote user equipment, classified in CPC H04W 88/02.
II. Claims 14-20, drawn to performed by a relay user equipment, classified in CPC H04B 7/14.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as performed by a relay user equipment, not necessarily in group I. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Because these inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-20 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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(s) 1, 3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OZTURK et al. (US Pub. No.: 2023/0328689, hereinafter, “Ozturk”) in view of CHENG et al. (US Pub. No.: 2023/0224859, hereinafter, “Cheng”) and further in view of KALHAN (US Pub. No.: 2021/0022114).
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Ozturk teaches a remote user equipment (UE) and method (see figures 4 and 10, UE 1000), comprising:
at least one processor (see figure 10, UE 1000, [0150]); and
at least one computer memory operably connected to the at least one processor and configured to store instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
establishing a PC5 connection with a relay UE (see figure 4, [0092, 0099, 0101-0104], remote UE, relay UE);
transitioning to a radio resource control (RRC) IDLE state (see figures 4 and 10, RRC state transition 1058, [0099, 0101-0104, 0163]); and
receiving from the relay UE, a paging message for the remote UE (see figure 4, [0099, 0101-0104], remote UE, relay UE).
It should be noticed that Ozturk fails to teach the paging occasion monitoring of the remote UE is performed by the relay UE in an RRC CONNECTED state. However, Cheng teaches the paging occasion monitoring of the remote UE is performed by the relay UE in an RRC CONNECTED state (see figure 20, [0098-0099, 0104, 0107], paging may not be supported when the remote UE is in RRC IDLE mode and the relay UE is in RRC CONNECTED mode. It is clearly seen that the relay UE does not receive the paging message from remote UE. In order to monitor the remote UE, the remote UE may transmit information that the relay UE can use to calculate the remote UE's paging occasions in a sidelink message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Cheng into view of Ozturk in order to reduce power consumption at the relay UE, since the relay UE may not need to be active for paging occasions other than those associated with the relay UE as suggested by Cheng in [0107]).
Ozturk and Cheng, in combination, fails to teach transmitting, to the relay UE, information related to paging occasion monitoring of the remote UE, based on a reception of a request for the information from the relay UE. However, KALHAN teaches transmitting, to the relay UE, information related to paging monitoring of the remote UE, based on a reception of a request for the information from the relay UE (see figures 1 and 3, [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of KALHAN into view of Ozturk and Cheng in order to reduce power consumption at the relay UE, since the relay UE may not need to be active for paging occasions other than those associated with the relay UE as suggested by Cheng in [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Ozturk further teaches the information related to the paging occasion monitoring includes a fifth generation serving temporary mobile subscriber identity (5G-S- TMSI) and a Uu discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle (see [0096]).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng further teaches the paging message is received, from the relay UE, through unicast signaling via PC5 ([0071]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OZTURK et al. (US Pub. No.: 2023/0328689, hereinafter, “Ozturk”) in view of CHENG et al. (US Pub. No.: 2023/0224859, hereinafter, “Cheng”) and further in view of KALHAN (US Pub. No.: 2021/0022114) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of IDS (filed on 08/14/2025)-NPL-3GPP RAN WG2 Meeting #115 electronic online, August, 2021, InterDigital).
Regarding claim 7, Ozturk teaches remote UE is transition from the RRC IDLE state to the RRC CONNECTED state and via versa (see [0094]). Ozturk, Cheng and KALHAN, in combination, fails to teach the remote UE transmits information indicating that the remote UE transitions to the RRC IDLE state to the relay UE. However, InterDigital teaches the remote UE transmits information indicating that the remote UE transitions to the relay UE (see proposal 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of InterDigital into view of Ozturk, Cheng and KALHAN in order to provide for reduced power consumption at the relay UE, since the relay UE may not need to be active for paging occasions other than those associated with the relay UE.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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 question on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights