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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 39-54 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 submitted 03/08/2024 and 10/07/2025 is attached to the instant office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 39-42, 45-50, 53, 54, drawn to a relay WTRU initiated release procedure based on a relay WTRU receiving a RRC reconfiguration message from a network device.
Group 2, claim(s) 43, 44, 51, 52, drawn to remote WTRU initiated release procedure based on a remote WTRU receiving a RRC reconfiguration message from a network device.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups 1 and 2 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of performing a release procedure based on receiving an RRC reconfiguration message, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of WO 2021/034074 A1 to Youn. As illustrated in [0238] and Figure 11A, a relay UE receives an RRC reconfiguration RRC release message from a base station and sends a RRC release message to the remote UE.
During a telephone conversation with J. Warren Lytle on Feb 27, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 2, claims 43, 44, 51, 52. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 39-42, 45-50, 53, 54 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected 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.
Claim(s) 43, 44, 51, 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0080697 A1 (provisional application no. 63/136,154, filed on Jan. 11, 2021) to Teyeb et al. (hereinafter “Teyeb”) in view of US 2024/0137995 A1 (foreign priority date of Aug. 4, 2021) to Cai et al. (hereinafter “Cai”)
Regarding Claim 43, Teyeb teaches A method of communication performed by a remote user equipment (UE), comprising: (Figure 8, remote WTRU)
receiving, from a network device, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message; and (Figure 8 and [0116], illustrates At 830, an RRC reconfiguration message may be sent (e.g., by the gNB) to a remote WTRU)
to trigger a PC5 unicast link release associated with a relay UE in a case where the RRC reconfiguration message indicating an indirect to direct path switch. ([0115]-[0116], further discloses There may be switching from an indirect path to a direct path. FIG. 8 shows an example of a service continuity procedure for an L2 WTRU-to-Network relay (e.g., for a remote WTRU switching to a direct Uu cell). At 830, an RRC reconfiguration message may be sent (e.g., by the gNB) to a remote WTRU. At 870, a PC5 link may be released between the remote WTRU and the relay WTRU)
Teyeb discloses in [0103], The PC5-RRC connection and the corresponding sidelink signaling radio bearers (SRBs) and sidelink data radio bearers (DRBs) may be released, for example, if/when the PC5 unicast link is released (e.g., as indicated by upper layers) but does not explicitly teach a first protocol layer of the remote UE indicating a second protocol layer of the remote UE to trigger a PC5 unicast link release associated with a relay UE.
However, the concept of signaling between protocol layers for triggering a PC5 unicast link release is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Cai discloses in [0117]-[0119], the remote UE sends indication information to the relay UE, where the indication information indicates to release the unicast link between the remote UE and the relay UE. In some embodiments the indication information may be a unicast link release request message, for example, a disconnect request message. That is, the indication information may be used to release the unicast link between the remote UE and the relay UE. If the first timer expires, an RRC layer (i.e. first protocol layer) of the remote UE notifies the higher layer (for example, a ProSe layer, a V2X layer, or a NAS layer) (i.e. second protocol layer) that establishment of the RRC connection fails. In this case, the higher layer triggers sending the indication information to the relay UE (i.e. trigger a PC5 unicast link release).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Teyeb to include the above limitations as suggested by Cai, in order to effectively reduce signaling overheads as indicated in [0008] of Cai.
Regarding Claim 44, Teyeb/Cai teaches The method of claim 43, further comprising: Cai further teaches the second protocol layer sending a link release request to the relay UE. ([0117], discloses the remote UE sends indication information to the relay UE, where the indication information indicates to release the unicast link (i.e. link release request) between the remote UE and the relay UE. [0119], discloses the higher layer (i.e. second protocol layer) triggers sending the indication information to the relay UE.) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 43 above.
Regarding Claim 51, Teyeb teaches A remote user equipment (UE), comprising: (Figure 8, remote WTRU) a processor configured to cause the remote UE to: (Figure 1B and [0042], discloses WTRU comprising processor)
receive, from a network device, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message; and(Figure 8 and [0116], illustrates At 830, an RRC reconfiguration message may be sent (e.g., by the gNB) to a remote WTRU)
to trigger a PC5 unicast link release associated with a relay UE in a case where the RRC reconfiguration message indicating an indirect to direct path switch. ([0115]-[0116], further discloses There may be switching from an indirect path to a direct path. FIG. 8 shows an example of a service continuity procedure for an L2 WTRU-to-Network relay (e.g., for a remote WTRU switching to a direct Uu cell). At 830, an RRC reconfiguration message may be sent (e.g., by the gNB) to a remote WTRU. At 870, a PC5 link may be released between the remote WTRU and the relay WTRU)
Teyeb discloses in [0103], The PC5-RRC connection and the corresponding sidelink signaling radio bearers (SRBs) and sidelink data radio bearers (DRBs) may be released, for example, if/when the PC5 unicast link is released (e.g., as indicated by upper layers) but does not explicitly teach a first protocol layer of the remote UE indicating a second protocol layer of the remote UE to trigger a PC5 unicast link release associated with a relay UE.
However, the concept of signaling between protocol layers for triggering a PC5 unicast link release is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Cai discloses in [0117]-[0119], the remote UE sends indication information to the relay UE, where the indication information indicates to release the unicast link between the remote UE and the relay UE. In some embodiments the indication information may be a unicast link release request message, for example, a disconnect request message. That is, the indication information may be used to release the unicast link between the remote UE and the relay UE. If the first timer expires, an RRC layer (i.e. first protocol layer) of the remote UE notifies the higher layer (for example, a ProSe layer, a V2X layer, or a NAS layer) (i.e. second protocol layer) that establishment of the RRC connection fails. In this case, the higher layer triggers sending the indication information to the relay UE (i.e. trigger a PC5 unicast link release).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Teyeb to include the above limitations as suggested by Cai, in order to effectively reduce signaling overheads as indicated in [0008] of Cai.
Regarding Claim 52, Teyeb/Cai teaches The remote UE of claim 51, wherein the remote UE is further caused to: Cai further teaches send a link release request to the relay UE from the second protocol layer. ([0117], discloses the remote UE sends indication information to the relay UE, where the indication information indicates to release the unicast link (i.e. link release request) between the remote UE and the relay UE. [0119], discloses the higher layer (i.e. second protocol layer) triggers sending the indication information to the relay UE.) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 51 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477