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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues of “For example a UE may be configured to handle … measurement configuration to the remote UE (Specification paragraph [0154]”. Examiner disagrees, and would like to point out the feature that the applicant is relying on is not disclosed in the recently amended claim. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element in the instant independent claim is 1. Access a serving cell via relay UE and 2. Receive a RRC reconfiguration message. Both of this limitation are well known in the art and are taught by the combination of reference Mattam et la. In view of Cai et al., as indicated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below. As such the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 16 recites the limitation “an RRC reconfiguration message” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattam et al. (US 2024/0089820 A1) in view of Cai et al. (US 2024/0237086 A1). Regarding claims 1, 16, 19, 20, Mattam et al. discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and, at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (See Fig 1 item 120 and 130) and configured to cause the UE to:; and receive a radio resource control (RRC) message from the serving cell, wherein the RRC message includes an RRC reconfiguration message; (Para 61 and Para 62 teaches of a UE the receive a measurement configuration message). Mattam et al. does not explicitly discloses a UE to access a serving cell via a relay UE. However Cai et al. discloses a UE to access a serving cell via a relay UE (See Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of accessing the serving cell via a relay UE of Cai et al. with the system of Mattam et al. in order to provide a system of a improved SINR the ensures high speed, reliable connectivity that avoids severe path loss. Regarding claim 2, Mattam et al. discloses a UE, wherein, when the RRC message includes the RRC reconfiguration message, the RRC reconfiguration message includes a measurement configuration, and wherein the measurement configuration includes at least one of: a blacklist of cells, wherein each cell within the blacklist of cells is not applicable for an event evaluation or a measurement procedure; or a whitelist of cells, wherein each cell within the whitelist of cells is applicable for the event evaluation or the measurement procedure (Para 135-138 teaches of Whitelist cells that support a slices mapped to a frequency and blacklist cells that do not support slices mapped to a frequency.“). Regarding claim 3, Mattam et al. discloses a UE, wherein: when the serving cell of the relay UE belongs to the blacklist, the relay UE is not applicable for the event evaluation or the measurement procedure; or when the serving cell of the relay UE belongs to the whitelist, the relay UE is applicable for the event evaluation or the measurement procedure. (Para 135-138 teaches of Whitelist cells that support a slices mapped to a frequency and blacklist cells that do not support slices mapped to a frequency.“). Regarding claim 4, Mattam et al. discloses a UE, wherein, wherein, when the serving cell of the relay UE does not belong to the blacklist or the whitelist: the relay UE is not applicable for the event evaluation or the measurement procedure; or the relay UE is applicable for the event evaluation or the measurement procedure (Para 135 “If the NSSAI mapping is shared for a frequency, all cells belonging to the frequency (if no whitelist/allowed list is provided) will support the slices represented by the mapping”). Regarding claim 5, Mattam et al. discloses a UE, wherein the at least processor is further configured to cause the UE to report a measurement result once an event associated with the relay UE is fulfilled during performance of the event evaluation and in response to the relay UE being applicable for the event evaluation or the measurement procedure (Para 68 and Para 113-116 teaches of measurement reporting). Regarding claim 12, Cai et al. discloses a UE, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: initiate an RRC reestablishment procedure in response to: declaring a radio link failure (RLF) or receiving a notification message associated with at least one indication of: the relay UE handover, or an RLF on a Uu link of the relay UE (Para 81 teaches of link failure) ; transmit an RRC reestablishment request message; and start a timer associated with RRC reestablishment request (Para 111-113 teaches of reestablishment of connection and starting the timer) Regarding claim 14, Cai et al. discloses a UE, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: enter an RRC inactive state in response to the RRC message including the RRC release message and in response to the RRC release message including a suspend indication; transmit a RRC resume request message; and start a timer associated with the RRC resume request. (Para 111-113 teaches of reestablishment of connection and starting the timer)
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattam et al. (US 2024/0089820 A1) in view of Cai et al. (US 2024/0237086 A1) as applied to claim 1, above in further view of Koskinen et al. (US 2024/0114585A1). Regarding claims 7, 17, Mattam et al. in view of Cai et al. discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1 above. Mattam et al. in view of Cai et al. does not discloses an UE, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: enter an RRC idle state, in response to the RRC message including the RRC release message; initiate an RRC setup request procedure; and start a timer associated with an RRC setup request upon transmitting an RRC setup request message. However Koskinen et al. discloses an UE, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: enter an RRC idle state, in response to the RRC message including the RRC release message (Para 167 teaches of a RRC release message and UE entering an RRC IDEL state); initiate an RRC setup request procedure; and start a timer associated with an RRC setup request upon transmitting an RRC setup request message ( Para 185 teaches of initiating a RRC setup request message and setting a timer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of using RRC release and RRC setup request message of Koskinen et al. with the system of Mattam et al. in view of Cai et al. in order to provide a system of an improved SINR the ensures high speed, reliable connectivity that avoids severe path loss. Regarding claims 8, 18, Koskinen et al. discloses an UE, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to perform a unified access control procedure in response to initiating the RRC setup request procedure (Para 126 teaches of sending a RRC setup complete message after setting up a unified access control).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-11,13, and 15 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AJAY P CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 5712723940. 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.
/AJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
