CTNF 18/726,193 CTNF 80192 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status Claims 1–11 are pending and examined herein. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization. In the interest of expedited prosecution, the Examiner recommends scheduling an interview prior to filing a response to the present Office action. The Examiner feels that an interview would help foster a mutual understanding of the respective positions of Applicant and the Examiner, and assist in the identification of allowable subject matter and/or issues for appeal. If Applicant agrees that an interview would be beneficial, please contact the Examiner to arrange one. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 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 (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller configured to” in claim 1 and 7. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure appears in ¶29 of the Specification. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 8–11 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. Claim 8 is an apparatus claim directed to a relay user equipment comprising a transmitter, but contains numerous limitations directed to actions performed by a remote UE (e.g., “determine when the relay UE device is connected,” “the cell is identified in a … Message received at the remote UE”) and properties of the remote UE (e.g., “the remote UE device connected to the cell”). It is not clear how these limitations are intended to define the structure of the claimed user equipment. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite structural elements of the relay UE or otherwise provide adequate explanation of how the limitations directed to actions and properties of a remote device are understood to define the scope of the claimed relay UE. Claims 9–11 depend from claim 8 and thus are rejected under the same rationale and their failure to remedy the above noted deficiencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1–3 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2024/0205768) in view of Paladugu et al. (US 2021/0385714) further in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0236789) . With regard to claim 1, Cheng discloses a remote user equipment (UE) device (UE 602)(¶87) comprising: a receiver (UE contains one or more transceivers)(¶107–110) configured to: receive, from a base station (e.g., gNB 606)(¶45; ¶87) over a direct Uu communication link (Uu connection 604)(¶87), a first Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration Message (the RRC message may be an RRCReconfiguration message)(¶124) identifying a first target relay UE device and identifying a first cell for reselection by the first target relay UE device (RRC message is transmitted to the UE and includes an identifier of the target relay device and a serving cell ID)(¶79; ¶88), the first cell provided by the base station (cell is implicitly or explicitly indicated in the RRC message and may be the same as the cell provided by the base station)(¶79), the remote UE device connected to the first cell (remote UE is connected to the base station/first cell)(¶87). Cheng fails to specifically disclose that the RRCReconfiguration message is with sync; receiving, from the first target relay UE device, a first discovery message, a controller configured to determine, based on the first discovery message, that the first target relay UE device is not connected to the first cell; and a transmitter configured to transmit, to the base station over the direct Uu communication link and in response to the controller determining the first target relay UE device is not connected to the first cell, a message indicating that handover to the first target relay UE device is not possible. Wu discloses a similar system for wireless communication using relay UEs (Abstract). Wu teaches a serving cell transmitting an RRC Reconfiguration message with sync to notify a node to initiate a handover procedure (¶82–84). Since Cheng also teaches that the RRC reconfiguration message triggers the remote UE to perform a handover procedure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that doing so via a “RRC Reconfiguration message with sync,” as taught by Wu, would have been a predictable variation of the RRC message disclosed by Cheng. Paladugu also discloses a similar system for wireless communication using relay UEs (Abstract). Paladugu teaches receiving, from the first target relay UE device, a first discovery message (¶65–66), a controller configured to determine, based on the first discovery message, that the first target relay UE device is not connected to the first cell (remote UE may determine the availability of the relay UE via the discovery messages)(¶65–67); and a transmitter configured to transmit, to the base station over the direct Uu communication link and in response to the controller determining the first target relay UE device is not connected to the first cell, a message indicating that handover to the first target relay UE device is not possible (the remote UE may transmit a message indicating the presence or availability of the relay UE, which may indicate unavailability)(¶66). This would have been an advantageous addition to the system collectively disclosed by Cheng and Wu since it would have notified the base station of the availability and/or capability of the first target relay device and provided the opportunity for the remote UE to switch communicating via to a different target relay device or back to the base station, as appropriate. 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 Cheng use an RRC Reconfiguration message with sync to notify a node to initiate a handover procedure, receive discovery messages from target relay devices and notify the base station when handover to the target relay is not possible because it is not connected to the first cell, such as when it has insufficient channel quality. These modifications would have advantageously provided the base station with notice of unusable target relays devices and provided the opportunity for selection of a different relay station for the remote station to communicate with. With regard to claim 2, Cheng further discloses that the receiver is further configured to: receive, from the base station over the direct Uu communication link, a second RRC Reconfiguration Message with Sync identifying a second target relay UE device and identifying a second cell for reselection by the second target relay UE device, and receive, from the second target relay UE device, a second discovery message (if connection to the first relay fails, the selection procedure may be repeated; additionally, once connected to a target relay, the base station may trigger the UE to switch to a second target relay)(¶88; fig. 8; ¶97–101). With regard to claim 3, Cheng further discloses that the second target relay UE device is different from the first target relay UE device (UE can be instructed to switch to a new relay)(¶98). With regard to claim 5, Cheng further discloses that the second cell is different from the first cell (UE may be handed over to a new cell/gNB in addition to a new target relay)(¶97). With regard to claim 6, Cheng further discloses that wherein the second cell is the same as the first cell (UE may be handed over to a new target relay, but remain on the same cell/gNB)(¶97) With regard to claim 7, Cheng and Paladugu collectively disclose that the controller is further configured to determine, based on the second discovery message, that the second target relay UE device is connected to the second cell (connection status of the target relays is determined in response to discovery messages)(Paladugu; ¶65–66), and the transmitter is further configured to transmit, to the second target relay UE device over a PC5 communication link and in response to the controller determining the second target relay UE device is connected to the second cell, a message directed to the base station and indicating the second cell is the target cell (upon establishment of a sidelink PC5 connection with the target relay, the UE performs RRC connection establishment/re-establishment with the base station)(Cheng; ¶89–90). While Cheng and Paladugu fail to specifically disclose that the message is an RRC Reconfiguration Complete Message, those specific messages are well known in the art and would have been a predictable variation of the unspecified message taught by Cheng . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al. (US 2021/0385714) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2024/0205768) further in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0236789) . With regard to claim 8, Paladugu discloses a relay user equipment (UE) device (relay UE 406)(¶64) comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit, to a remote UE device (remote UE 402)(¶64), a discovery message (relay UE transmits a discovery message to the remote UE)(¶65) containing information upon which the remote UE device can determine when the relay UE device is connected to a cell (discovery message may indicate availability of relay UE to relay between the remote UE and the base station)(¶65). Paladugu fails to specifically disclose that the cell is identified in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration Message with Sync received at the remote UE device from a base station, the RRC Reconfiguration Message with Sync identifying the relay UE device and identifying the cell for reselection by the relay UE device, the remote UE device connected to the cell. Cheng discloses a similar system for remote user equipment to communicate via direct or indirect links with a network (Abstract). Cheng teaches identifying a cell in a message received at a remote UE device form a base station (RRC message is transmitted to the UE and includes an identifier of the target relay device and the cell is implicitly or explicitly indicated in the RRC message and may be the same as the cell provided by the base station)(¶79), the message identifying the relay UE device and identifying the cell for reselection by the relay UE device (RRC message is transmitted to the UE and includes an identifier of the target relay device and a serving cell ID)(¶79; ¶88), the remote UE device connected to the cell (remote UE is connected to the base station/first cell)(¶87). Wu discloses a similar system for wireless communication using relay UEs (Abstract). Wu teaches a serving cell transmitting an RRC Reconfiguration message with sync to notify a node to initiate a handover procedure (¶82–84). Since Cheng also teaches that the RRC reconfiguration message triggers the remote UE to perform a handover procedure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that doing so via a “RRC Reconfiguration message with sync,” as taught by Wu, would have been a predictable variation of the RRC message disclosed by Cheng. 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 Paladugu use an RRC Reconfiguration message with sync to notify a node to initiate a handover procedure and to identify a target relay device and/or cell for reselection based on the discovery information about candidate relay cells. These modifications would have advantageously permitted the remote UE to select an appropriate relay device to resume communication with the base station. With regard to claim 9, Cheng further discloses that the cell is provided by the base station (UE may be handed over to a new target relay, but remain on the same cell/gNB)(¶97). With regard to claim 10, Cheng further discloses that the cell is provided by another base station (UE may be handed over to a new cell/gNB in addition to a new target relay)(¶97). With regard to claim 11, Cheng further discloses that a receiver configured to receive, from the remote UE device over a PC5 communication link, when the relay UE device is connected to the first cell, a message directed to the base station and indicating the cell is the target cell (upon establishment of a sitelink PC5 connection with the target relay, the UE performs RRC connection establishment/re-establishment with the base station)(Cheng; ¶89–90). While Cheng fails to specifically disclose that the message is an RRC Reconfiguration Complete Message, those specific messages are well known in the art and would have been a predictable variation of the unspecified message taught by Cheng . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 4 is 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example: Back et al. (US 2023/0363020) discloses a similar system for wireless device mobility, including a base station commanding a UE to establish communication via a relay UE (e.g., ¶201–217) Wang et al. (US 2024/0179726) also discloses a system for sidelink communication via at least one relay UE and providing report messages when determining there is no appropriate relay UE available (Abstract; ¶195–202). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON N STRANGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00. 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, Matthew Sked can be reached at 571-272-7627. 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. /AARON N STRANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/726,193 Page 2 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/726,193 Page 3 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/726,193 Page 4 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/726,193 Page 5 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/726,193 Page 7 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/726,193 Page 8 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/726,193 Page 11 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/726,193 Page 12 Art Unit: 6221
Prosecution Insights