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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection have been considered and they are not persuasive. The combination of MediaTek and Freda teaches each and every limitation in all the claims.
For example, applicant argues, page 6,
The mere fact that a PCS connection is established does not teach or suggest that the
UE transmits a PC5-RRC message indicating that the identified cell is the target cell. Rather, the Examiner relies on an unsupported assumption to supply a limitation that is absent from the cited reference.
In response to the Appellant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Where the rejection is based upon the teaching of a combination of references, as it is here, each reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As indicated in the previous office action, MediaTek discloses a PC5-RRC Message indicating the cell is a target cell (step 4, the U2N Remote UE establishes PC5 connection with target Relay UE. Here, when a UE establishes PC5 connection, it is a common practice that the UE will send a PC5 message indicating the relay node to have the PC5 connection which is normally associated with a cell or a target cell, that is, it implies the UE sends a PC5-RRC message indicating the cell is a target cell when establishing the connection. See more support from Freda below. Especially, [0170] of Freda, a WTRU may trigger a re-establishment procedure. In such procedure, the WTRU may indicate the relay WTRU (e.g., the L2 source/destination ID) in the re-establishment request message).
Applicant argues, page 7,
Freda does not teach or suggest "transmitting, to the target relay UE device over a PCS communication link, a PCS-RRC message indicating the cell is a target cell."
In response to the Appellant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Freda discloses, [0150-152], fig. 6, 606, the WTRU may select a relay having the best RSRP measurements as a potential relay WTRU; the WTRU may use the L2 source/destination ID provided with the discovery message transmission/reception to the new potential relay for transmission of the PC5-RRC configuration message; parameters including the ID sent to the relay WTRU in the PC5-RRC reconfiguration message; [0206], the remote WTRU may re-establish via relay if the relay WTRU is connected to a cell that is a conditional handover candidate of the remote WTRU. [0187], support of relaying by the cell on which reestablishment is triggered (e.g., cell originates from a relay capable NodeB, e.g., a gNB). That is, Freda discloses “transmitting, to the target relay UE device over a PCS communication link, a PCS-RRC message indicating the cell is a target cell”.
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) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MediaTek (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #116bis Electronic R2-2201725, Online Meeting, Jan 17 – 25, 2022, cited in IDS) in view of Freda (US 20240259906).
Regarding claim 1, MediaTek discloses a remote user equipment (UE) device comprising:
a receiver configured to receive, from a base station over a direct Uu communication link, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration Message with Sync identifying a target relay UE device and identifying a cell for reselection by the target relay UE device, the cell provided by the base station, the remote UE device connected to the cell (section 6.x.6, switching from indirect to direct Uu; figs. 16.x.6.1-1, 16.x.6.2-1, page 17-18, steps 2,3, the remote receives a RRC reconfiguration message, the gNB decides to switch the U2N Remote UE to a target U2N Relay UE, the gNB sends the RRCReconfiguration message to the U2N Remote UE. The contents in the RRCReconfiguration message can include at least U2N Relay UE ID, PC5 RLC configuration for relay traffic and the associated end-to-end radio bearer(s).; and
a transmitter configured to transmit, to the target relay UE device over a PC5 communication link: a PC5-RRC Message indicating the cell is a target cell (step 4, the U2N Remote UE establishes PC5 connection with target U2N Relay UE. Here, when a UE establishes PC5 connection, it is a common practice that the UE will send a PC5 message indicating the relay node to have the PC5 connection, the relay is normally associated with a cell or a target cell, that is, it implies the UE sends a PC5-RRC message indicating the cell is a target cell when establishing the connection) and
an RRC Reconfiguration Complete Message directed to the base station and indicating the cell is the target cell (fig. 16.x.6.2-1, step 5, the U2N Remote UE completes the path switch procedure by sending the RRCReconfiguration Complete message to the gNB via the Relay UE).
MediaTek does not explicitly disclose the UE receives RRC message over a direct Uu link, the UE comprises a receiver and a transmitter.
Freda discloses the UE receives RRC message over a direct Uu link (Freda, [0219], a remote WTRU may send the access identity to connected relay WTRU upon establishment of a Uu connection via the relay),
the UE comprises a receiver and a transmitter (Freda, fig. 1, transceiver),
Freda discloses transmitting, to the target relay UE device over a PCS communication link, a PCS-RRC message indicating the cell is a target cell (Freda, [0150-152], fig. 6, 606, the WTRU may select a relay having the best RSRP measurements as a potential relay WTRU; the WTRU may use the L2 source/destination ID provided with the discovery message transmission/reception to the new potential relay for transmission of the PC5-RRC configuration message; parameters including the ID sent to the relay WTRU in the PC5-RRC reconfiguration message; [0206], the remote WTRU may re-establish via relay if the relay WTRU is connected to a cell that is a conditional handover candidate of the remote WTRU. [0187], support of relaying by the cell on which reestablishment is triggered (e.g., cell originates from a relay capable NodeB, e.g., a gNB), [0170]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings as given by MediaTek with the teachings given by Freda. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method of link management and recovery for side-link relays (Freda, Abstract).
Claims 7, 8, 15 are rejected similarly with claim 1 noting that MediaTek and Freda discloses a controller configured to perform a cell reselection procedure that prioritizes the cell (MediaTek, proposal 3 (2021), when gNB configure remote UE and relay UE with PC5 RLC bearer, LCH priority shall reflect the PC5 priority for PC5 hop of relay traffic. Freda, [0186], a WTRU may prioritize a cell with a stored valid candidate configuration when performing recovery).
Regarding claims 2, 9, MediaTek and Freda disclose the remote UE device of claim 1, wherein the receiver is further configured to receive, from the target relay UE device, a message indicating that the target relay UE device failed to reselect the cell (MediaTek, page 14, upon detecting Uu radio link failure (RLF) by the Relay UE, a PC5-RRC message can be used for sending an indication from the Relay UE to its connected U2N Remote UE(s); Freda [0142], the relay WTRU may inform the source WTRU of any failed reselection performed by the relay WTRU).
Regarding claims 3, 10, MediaTek and Freda disclose the remote UE device of claim 2, wherein the message indicating that the target relay UE device failed to reselect the cell is a PC5-RRC message (MediaTek, page 14, upon detecting Uu RLF by the U2N Relay UE, a PC5-RRC message can be used for sending an indication from U2N Relay UE to its connected U2N Remote UE(s)), Freda [0142], the relay WTRU may inform the source WTRU of any failed reselection performed by the relay WTRU).
Regarding claims 4, 11, MediaTek and Freda disclose the remote UE device of claim 2, wherein the message indicating that the target relay UE device failed to reselect the cell is a Discovery message that includes a cell identifier (ID) indicating another cell to which the target relay UE device is connected (MediaTek, section 16.9.y, Freda, [0142][0149], the WTRU may provide the source WTRU with updated configuration and/or QoS information of the updated link to the destination, such as new cell ID of the new cell to which the last hop relay WTRU is connected, using the discovery message for the relay selection)
Regarding claims 5, 12, MediaTek and Freda disclose the remote UE device of claim 2, wherein the message indicating that the target relay UE device failed to reselect the cell is a PC5-S message with a release indicator to release a unicast connection between the target relay UE device and the remote UE device (MediaTek, proposal 5, upon reception of the PC5 RRC message for notification, it is up to remote UE implementation whether to release or keep the unicast PC5 link; Freda [0142], the relay WTRU may inform the source WTRU of any failed reselection performed by the relay WTRU).
Regarding claim 6, MediaTek and Freda disclose the remote UE device of claim 2, further comprising:
a controller configured to, in response to receiving the message indicating that the target relay UE device failed to reselect the cell, perform relay reselection (MediaTek, upon reception of the PC5 RRC message for notification, it is up to remote UE implementation whether to release or keep the unicast PC5 link. And if remote UE decides to release the unicast PC5 link, it triggers the legacy L2 release procedure and performs relay reselection; Freda [0142], the relay WTRU may inform the source WTRU of any failed reselection performed by the relay WTRU).
Regarding claims 13, 14, 16, MediaTek and Freda disclose relay UE device of claim 7, wherein the PC5-RRC Message is received while the relay UE device is in one of an RRC IDLE state or an RRC INACTIVE state (Freda, [0221], a relay WTRU in RRC_INACTIVE/RRC_IDLE may initiate a connection establishment/resume immediately upon reception of paging intended for the remote WTRU), and wherein the controller is configured to perform a cell reselection procedure that prioritizes the cell in response to the PC5-RRC Message (Freda, [0155], may perform reselection/recovery to the relay WTRU associated with the highest priority).
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 ZHENSHENG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00am-6:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/ZHENSHENG ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights