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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed July 30, 2026. Claims 1, 10, 17, and 18 have been amended. No claims have been canceled and no claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1, 10, 17, and 18 necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 04/30/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “That indication, however, is transmitted before the remote UE sends its RRC request, and Cheng does not describe the remote UE making any determination to keep or maintain the PC5 link in response to such an indication” (Remarks, page 10), the argument is directed to Cheng alone and is addressed by the new grounds of rejection set forth below, which apply Cheng in view of Yang.
The rejections below do not rely on Cheng for the remote UE’s determination to keep the PC5 link; that limitation is supplied by Yang, whose remote terminal device, upon receiving the relay terminal device’s notification message, “determines whether to continue to maintain the connection with the relay terminal device based on the auxiliary information carried in the first notification message” (Yang, para [0119]) and, “in response to determining by the remote terminal device, to maintain the connection with the relay terminal device”, stops sending relay data to the relay (Yang, para [0121]). Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. 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 to the timing of the relay’s message, Cheng is not limited to the discovery-time indication of FIG. 11 on which the argument rests.
Cheng further teaches that, in response to reception of the RRC request from the remote UE, “the relay UE 1204 may transmit an indication 1216 of an additional timer to the remote UE 1202 via sidelink” (Cheng, col. 27, lines 64-66), that is, relay-to-remote signaling over the sidelink after the remote UE has transmitted its RRC request, and Yang’s notification is sent whenever the link failure occurs at the relay, which in the combination set forth below includes the interval in which the remote UE’s request is pending and its timer is running. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, which describes the UE that “may determine to keep the PC5 link between UE 501A and relay node 501B” in response to receiving the notification message and otherwise performing relay reselection (Specification, para [0061]; Specification, para [0092]), determining to keep a PC5 link in response to the notification message reads on Yang’s remote terminal determining, upon the relay’s notification, to continue to maintain its sidelink connection with the relay rather than disconnect from it. See MPEP 2111; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In regard to Applicant’s argument that claims 2-9, 11-16, 19 and 20 are “allowable at least by virtue of its dependency from an allowable independent claim, and for the additional features it recites” (Remarks, page 10), the argument is not persuasive because it relies on the asserted patentability of independent claims 1, 10, 17, and 18, which are rejected for the reasons set forth below. No separate argument directed to any additional limitation of a dependent claim has been presented, and the additional features are addressed claim by claim below.
As to Applicant’s argument that the secondary reference “does not teach or suggest the UE determining to keep a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to a notification message from the relay node” and that “the secondary reference does not cure this deficiency” (Remarks, page 10), 3GPP TS 24.501 is not relied upon for that limitation. In the rejection of claims 6-9 below, Yang supplies the notification message and the determination to keep the PC5 link, Cheng supplies the relayed RRC setup request and its timer, and 3GPP TS 24.501 supplies only the mobility registration update features that claims 6-9 add. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1, 10, 17, and 18 to recite receiving a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC setup request message or the RRC reestablishment request message, and determining to keep, or to maintain, a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message, necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth below. The new grounds apply Yang for the first time and rely on passages of Cheng not previously applied, including Cheng, col. 27, lines 62-66 and col. 31, lines 50-52. Accordingly, the rejections below constitute new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, and this action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 11,903,058 B2) in view of Yang (US 2024/0224364 A1).
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Cheng discloses: A user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:, because Cheng teaches an apparatus that may be a UE and whose cellular baseband processor includes a computer-readable memory holding software which, when executed by that processor, causes the processor to perform the functions Cheng describes, which means that the UE has at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with that memory and configured to cause the UE to perform the operations that follow: (Cheng, col. 31, lines 50-52 “The apparatus 1602 may be a UE, a component of a UE, or may implement UE functionality”; Cheng, col. 31, lines 63-65 “The cellular baseband processor 1604 may include a computer-readable medium/memory”; Cheng, col. 32, lines 2-4 “The software, when executed by the cellular baseband processor 1604, causes the cellular baseband processor 1604 to perform the various functions described supra”).
Furthermore, Cheng discloses: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) setup request message to a base station via a relay node; start a timer for RRC setup request in response to transmitting the RRC setup request message; as Cheng describes a remote UE that transmits an RRC setup request to the base station via a relay UE (i.e., “relay node” as claimed) and starts a timer similar to T300 (i.e., “timer for RRC setup request” as claimed) upon that transmission, such that the UE transmits an RRC setup request message to a base station via a relay node and starts a timer for RRC setup request in response to transmitting the RRC setup request message: (Cheng, col. 24, lines 53-58 “the remote UE 1002 may transmit an RRC request, the RRC request may be a request to establish an RRC connection (e.g., an RRC setup request), a request to resume an RRC connection (e.g., an RRC resume request), or a request to reestablish an RRC connection”; Cheng, col. 24, lines 66-67 “the remote UE 1002 may start a timer for RRC establishment via a relay UE (e.g., similar to T300)”; Cheng, col. 25, lines 1-2 “upon transmission of the RRC setup request, at 1014, to the base station 1006 via the relay UE 1004”).
Although Cheng teaches that the relay UE may send the remote UE an indication over the sidelink in response to receiving the remote UE’s RRC request: (Cheng, col. 27, lines 62-66), Cheng does not explicitly disclose receiving a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC setup request message and determining to keep a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message.
However, Cheng in view of Yang discloses receive a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC setup request message; and since Yang explains that the relay terminal device, in response to a link failure occurring on its own side, sends a first notification message to the remote terminal device, which receives it over the sidelink through which it communicates with the relay. In the combination, the remote UE of Cheng, whose RRC setup request has been sent through the relay UE and whose timer is running, is the remote terminal that receives that notification when the relay’s link fails, whereby the UE receives a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC setup request message (Yang, para [0092], “a first notification message sent by a relay terminal device is received, in which, in embodiments of the disclosure, the first notification message is sent by the relay terminal device in response to a link failure occurring on the relay terminal device”; Yang, para [0093], “The remote terminal device receives the first notification message from the relay terminal device via the sidelink communication”; Yang, para [0031], “When the relay UE communicates with the remote UE, a link failure often occurs on the relay UE side, causing that the remote UE cannot communicate with the base station”).
Furthermore, Yang discloses determine to keep a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message. in that Yang shows the remote terminal, upon receiving the first notification message, determining whether to continue to maintain its connection with the relay terminal device and, when it determines to maintain that connection, notifying the relay and holding its relay data until the relay reports that its RRC connection is reestablished, the connection between the two UEs being the sidelink whose interface is the PC5 port, with the result that the UE determines to keep a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message (Yang, para [0119], “the remote terminal device, upon receiving the first notification message sent by the relay terminal device after the link failure occurs, determines whether to continue to maintain the connection with the relay terminal device based on the auxiliary information carried in the first notification message”; Yang, para [0119], “If the remote terminal device determines to continue to maintain the connection with the relay terminal device, the remote terminal device notifies the relay terminal device when determining to maintain the connection”; Yang, para [0121], “in response to determining by the remote terminal device, to maintain the connection with the relay terminal device, stopping sending relay data to the relay terminal device”; Yang, para [0003], “In order to support direct communication between User Equipments (UEs), a sidelink communication mode is introduced. An interface between the UEs is a PC5 port”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the remote UE of Cheng, which sends its RRC setup request to the base station through the relay UE and runs a timer for that request, receive from the relay UE the link failure notification of Yang and, in response, determine to keep its PC5 link with that relay UE as Yang’s remote terminal does. Cheng’s remote UE depends on the relay UE’s own connection to the base station for its request to be answered, and Cheng already has the relay UE signal the remote UE over the sidelink in response to the request; Yang states the problem that a link failure often occurs on the relay UE side so that the remote UE cannot communicate with the base station and that effective means for dealing with it were lacking, and Yang’s notification lets the remote terminal learn of the failure in time, adopt a reasonable processing mode and avoid an unnecessary relay reselection. Applying Yang’s notification and keep decision to Cheng’s relayed setup procedure is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, with the predictable result that the remote UE learns of the relay’s failure while its request is pending and keeps the sidelink rather than reselecting. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since both references already have the relay UE signal its RRC connection state or failure to the remote UE over the sidelink the two share.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) Cheng discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to stop the timer for RRC setup request when at least one of the following conditions is met: the UE determines to keep a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node after the UE receives a notification message from the relay node; the UE determines to keep a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node after the UE receives a notification message from the relay node and a serving cell of the UE changes; a serving cell of the UE changes; the UE receives a notification message from the relay node; or the UE detects a radio link failure (RLF) on a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node., as Cheng further discloses that the remote UE stops the setup timer upon a cell reselection, a reselection that moves the remote UE to another cell, such that the UE stops the timer for RRC setup request when a serving cell of the UE changes (Cheng, col. 25, lines 2-6 “The remote UE 1002 may stop the timer upon reception of an RRC set up message 816, and RRC reject message, a cell reselection, or a relay UE reselection, or upon stopping connection establishment by upper layers”).
Claim 2 recites its conditions joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is met. The alternative relied on is a serving cell of the UE changes, which is the limitation mapped above.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, (Previously Presented) Cheng in view of Yang discloses The UE of claim 2, wherein the serving cell of the UE changes due to a handover of the relay node, an RLF between the relay node and the base station, a cell reselection of the relay node, or an RRC connection failure of the relay node., as Yang further discloses that the link failure at the relay terminal device includes a radio link failure, after which the relay reestablishes its RRC connection in a cell that may differ from its serving cell before the failure and notifies the remote terminal of that change. The remote terminal reaches the base station only through the relay, whereby the serving cell of the UE changes due to an RLF between the relay node and the base station (Yang, para [0093], “The link failure includes, but is not limited to, at least one of: a RLF; a T310 timer being expired; a T312 timer being expired; an integrity check failure on a SRB1”; Yang, para [0108], “in response to a cell chosen to be reestablished by the relay terminal device is different from the serving cell before the link failure occurs, sending the first notification message to the remote terminal device”; Yang, para [0004], “A UE can realize communication with a base station through the relay by means of another UE without directly connecting to the base station”).
Claim 3 recites its causes joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is present. The alternative relied on is an RLF between the relay node and the base station, which is the limitation mapped above.
Thus, Cheng and Yang are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 2, (Previously Presented) Cheng in view of Yang discloses The UE of claim 2, wherein the notification message indicates at least one of: a handover of the relay node, an RLF between the relay node and the base station, a cell reselection of the relay node, or an RRC connection failure of the relay node., as Yang further discloses that the first notification message carries auxiliary information including the failure cause, which includes a radio link failure of the relay terminal device on its link toward the network device, with the result that the notification message indicates an RLF between the relay node and the base station (Yang, para [0118], “a failure cause, in which the failure cause includes at least one of: a radio link failure; a T310 timer being expired; a T312 timer being expired”; Yang, para [0093], “the relay terminal device sends the first notification message to the remote terminal device in response to a link failure occurring on the relay terminal device”).
Claim 4 recites its indications joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is indicated. The alternative relied on is an RLF between the relay node and the base station, which is the limitation mapped above.
Consequently, Cheng and Yang are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 3, (Previously Presented) Cheng discloses The UE of claim 3, wherein the RRC connection failure of the relay node comprises an RRC connection rejection at the relay node, an expiry of a timer for RRC setup request at the relay node, and an RRC resume failure at the relay node., as Cheng further discloses that the relay UE is itself a UE that performs its own RRC connection establishment or resume toward the base station when it receives the remote UE’s request, and that a UE’s RRC connection attempt fails upon an RRCReject message, upon expiry of its T300 timer, or upon expiry of its T319 resume timer, so that the RRC connection failure of the relay node comprises an RRC connection rejection at the relay node, an expiry of a timer for RRC setup request at the relay node, and an RRC resume failure at the relay node (Cheng, col. 23, lines 17-21 “FIG. 9 illustrates that the relay UE 904 responds to the RRC set up request by transmitting its own RRC set up request 914 to resume or re-establish an RRC connection between the relay UE 904 and the base station 906”; Cheng, col. 23, lines 40-44 “The UE may stop the T300 timer in response to reception of RRCSetup message or RRCReject message, cell re-selection and upon abortion of connection establishment by upper layers. When the timer expires, the UE may perform a NAS recovery”; Cheng, col. 23, lines 56-60 “UE may stop the T319 timer in response to reception of any of a RRCResume, RRCSetup, RRCRelease, RRCRelease with suspendConfig or RRCReject message and upon cell re-selection. When the timer expires, the UE may enter an RRC idle state”).
Regarding claim 10, (Currently Amended) Cheng discloses: A user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:, given that Cheng sets out an apparatus that may be a UE and whose cellular baseband processor includes a computer-readable memory holding software which, when executed by that processor, causes the processor to perform the functions Cheng describes, so that the UE has at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with that memory and configured to cause the UE to perform the operations that follow: (Cheng, col. 31, lines 50-52 “The apparatus 1602 may be a UE, a component of a UE, or may implement UE functionality”; Cheng, col. 31, lines 63-65 “The cellular baseband processor 1604 may include a computer-readable medium/memory”; Cheng, col. 32, lines 2-4 “The software, when executed by the cellular baseband processor 1604, causes the cellular baseband processor 1604 to perform the various functions described supra”).
Furthermore, Cheng discloses: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment request message to a base station via a relay node; start a timer for RRC reestablishment request in response to transmitting the RRC reestablishment request message;, because Cheng teaches a remote UE whose RRC request may be a request to reestablish an RRC connection with the base station via the relay UE (i.e., “relay node” as claimed), and which starts a timer similar to T301 (i.e., “timer for RRC reestablishment request” as claimed) upon transmission of the RRCReestablishmentRequest, which means that the UE transmits an RRC reestablishment request message to a base station via a relay node and starts a timer for RRC reestablishment request in response to transmitting the RRC reestablishment request message: (Cheng, col. 24, lines 53-58 “the remote UE 1002 may transmit an RRC request, the RRC request may be a request to establish an RRC connection (e.g., an RRC setup request), a request to resume an RRC connection (e.g., an RRC resume request), or a request to reestablish an RRC connection”; Cheng, col. 24, lines 59-62 “The remote UE 1002 may then apply a correspond timer from the system information 1010, e.g., based on the attempt to establish, resume, or reestablish an RRC connection with the base station 1006 via the relay UE 1004”; Cheng, col. 25, lines 20-23 “the remote UE 1002 may start a timer for RRC connection reestablishment via a relay UE (e.g., similar to T301) upon transmission of an RRCReestablishmentRequest”).
Although Cheng teaches that the remote UE stops its reestablishment timer when the selected cell or the selected relay UE becomes unsuitable and enters an RRC idle state when that timer expires: (Cheng, col. 25, lines 23-29), Cheng does not explicitly disclose receiving a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC reestablishment request message, and stopping the timer for RRC reestablishment request when the UE determines to maintain a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message.
Conversely, Cheng in view of Yang discloses receive a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC reestablishment request message; and as Yang describes the relay terminal device sending a first notification message to the remote terminal device in response to a link failure on the relay’s own side, which the remote terminal receives over the sidelink through which it communicates with the relay. In the combination, the remote UE of Cheng, whose RRC reestablishment request has been sent through the relay UE and whose timer is running, is the remote terminal that receives that notification when the relay’s link fails, such that the UE receives a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC reestablishment request message (Yang, para [0092], “a first notification message sent by a relay terminal device is received, in which, in embodiments of the disclosure, the first notification message is sent by the relay terminal device in response to a link failure occurring on the relay terminal device”; Yang, para [0093], “The remote terminal device receives the first notification message from the relay terminal device via the sidelink communication”; Yang, para [0031], “When the relay UE communicates with the remote UE, a link failure often occurs on the relay UE side, causing that the remote UE cannot communicate with the base station”).
Furthermore, Yang discloses stop the timer for RRC reestablishment request when a pre-specified condition is met, wherein the pre-specified condition comprises the UE determining to maintain a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message. since Yang explains that the remote terminal, upon the first notification message, determines whether to continue to maintain its sidelink connection with the relay terminal device and, in response to determining to maintain it, stops sending relay data to the relay and resumes only when the relay reports that its RRC connection has been reestablished, so that the remote terminal suspends the activity that depends on the relay while it waits for the relay to recover. In the combination set forth below, the timer the remote UE runs for its pending reestablishment request through that relay is stopped as part of that suspension, whereby the UE stops the timer for RRC reestablishment request when a pre-specified condition is met, the pre-specified condition comprising the UE determining to maintain a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message (Yang, para [0119], “the remote terminal device, upon receiving the first notification message sent by the relay terminal device after the link failure occurs, determines whether to continue to maintain the connection with the relay terminal device based on the auxiliary information carried in the first notification message”; Yang, para [0121], “in response to determining by the remote terminal device, to maintain the connection with the relay terminal device, stopping sending relay data to the relay terminal device”; Yang, para [0122], “receiving by the remote terminal device a RRC connection reestablishment success notification of the relay terminal device sent by the relay terminal device; and resuming sending the relay data to the relay terminal device”; Yang, para [0003], “In order to support direct communication between User Equipments (UEs), a sidelink communication mode is introduced. An interface between the UEs is a PC5 port”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the remote UE of Cheng, while its RRC reestablishment request through the relay UE is pending, receive the relay’s link failure notification of Yang, determine to maintain its PC5 link with the relay as Yang’s remote terminal does, and stop its reestablishment timer upon that determination. Cheng already stops that timer when the relay path is abandoned, upon relay UE reselection or when the relay becomes unsuitable, and lets its expiry drive the remote UE into RRC idle; Yang’s remote terminal that keeps the relay instead stops sending relay data and waits for the relay to report a successful reestablishment, so that, in Yang’s words, an unnecessary relay reselection is avoided. Leaving Cheng’s timer running through that wait would expire it and send the remote UE to idle during the very recovery the remote UE has decided to wait for, defeating Yang’s purpose; stopping the timer upon the decision to maintain the link is the predictable accommodation, and Cheng itself teaches that the timers for connection via a relay may have stop and start conditions different from those of a direct connection. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the change adds one stop condition to a timer whose stop conditions Cheng already enumerates.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 10, (Previously Presented) Cheng discloses The UE of claim 10, wherein the pre-specified condition comprises at least one of the following: the relay node becomes no longer suitable; the UE performs a relay reselection or cell reselection; a serving cell of the UE changes; the UE determines to maintain a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving a notification message from the relay node or in response to detecting a radio link failure (RLF) on the PC5 link between the UE and the relay node; or the UE detects an RLF on a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node., as Cheng further discloses that the remote UE stops the reestablishment timer when the selected relay UE becomes unsuitable, which means that the pre-specified condition comprises the relay node becomes no longer suitable (Cheng, col. 25, lines 23-28 “The remote UE 1002 may stop the timer upon reception of an RRCReestablishment message or RRCSetup message, when the selected cell becomes unsuitable (e.g., does not meet a criteria or metric), or when the selected relay UE becomes unsuitable (e.g., does not meet a criteria or metric)”).
Claim 11 recites its conditions joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is present. The alternative relied on is the relay node becomes no longer suitable, which is the limitation mapped above.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 10, (Previously Presented) Cheng discloses The UE of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform at least one of the following: entering an idle state when the pre-specified condition is met; or performing actions associated with an idle state in response to entering the idle state when the pre-specified condition is met., as Cheng further discloses that the remote UE whose reestablishment timer ends without the reestablishment having completed enters an RRC idle state, the remote UE having no RRC connection while its request stands unanswered, such that the UE enters an idle state when the pre-specified condition is met and its timer is stopped without the reestablishment having completed (Cheng, col. 25, lines 28-29 “When the timer expires, the remote UE 1002 may enter an RRC idle state”).
Claim 12 recites its actions joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is performed. The alternative relied on is entering an idle state when the pre-specified condition is met, which is the limitation mapped above.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 11, (Previously Presented) Cheng in view of Yang discloses The UE of claim 11, wherein the serving cell of the UE changes due to a handover of the relay node, an RLF between the relay node and the base station, a cell reselection of the relay node, or an RRC connection failure of the relay node., as Yang further discloses that the link failure at the relay terminal device includes a radio link failure, after which the relay reestablishes its RRC connection in a cell that may differ from its serving cell before the failure and notifies the remote terminal of that change. The remote terminal reaches the base station only through the relay, whereby the serving cell of the UE changes due to an RLF between the relay node and the base station (Yang, para [0093], “The link failure includes, but is not limited to, at least one of: a RLF; a T310 timer being expired; a T312 timer being expired; an integrity check failure on a SRB1”; Yang, para [0108], “in response to a cell chosen to be reestablished by the relay terminal device is different from the serving cell before the link failure occurs, sending the first notification message to the remote terminal device”; Yang, para [0004], “A UE can realize communication with a base station through the relay by means of another UE without directly connecting to the base station”).
Claim 13 recites its causes joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is present. The alternative relied on is an RLF between the relay node and the base station, which is the limitation mapped above.
Thus, Cheng and Yang are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 11, (Previously Presented) Cheng in view of Yang discloses The UE of claim 11, wherein the notification message indicates at least one of: a handover of the relay node, an RLF between the relay node and the base station, a cell reselection of the relay node, or an RRC connection failure of the relay node., as Yang further discloses that the first notification message carries auxiliary information including the failure cause, which includes a radio link failure of the relay terminal device on its link toward the network device, with the result that the notification message indicates an RLF between the relay node and the base station (Yang, para [0118], “a failure cause, in which the failure cause includes at least one of: a radio link failure; a T310 timer being expired; a T312 timer being expired”; Yang, para [0093], “the relay terminal device sends the first notification message to the remote terminal device in response to a link failure occurring on the relay terminal device”).
Claim 14 recites its indications joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is indicated. The alternative relied on is an RLF between the relay node and the base station, which is the limitation mapped above.
Consequently, Cheng and Yang are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 13, (Previously Presented) Cheng discloses The UE of claim 13, wherein the RRC connection failure of the relay node comprises an RRC connection rejection at the relay node, an expiry of a timer for RRC setup request at the relay node, and an RRC resume failure at the relay node., as Cheng further discloses that the relay UE is itself a UE that performs its own RRC connection establishment or resume toward the base station when it receives the remote UE’s request, and that a UE’s RRC connection attempt fails upon an RRCReject message, upon expiry of its T300 timer, or upon expiry of its T319 resume timer, so that the RRC connection failure of the relay node comprises an RRC connection rejection at the relay node, an expiry of a timer for RRC setup request at the relay node, and an RRC resume failure at the relay node (Cheng, col. 23, lines 17-21 “FIG. 9 illustrates that the relay UE 904 responds to the RRC set up request by transmitting its own RRC set up request 914 to resume or re-establish an RRC connection between the relay UE 904 and the base station 906”; Cheng, col. 23, lines 40-44 “The UE may stop the T300 timer in response to reception of RRCSetup message or RRCReject message, cell re-selection and upon abortion of connection establishment by upper layers. When the timer expires, the UE may perform a NAS recovery”; Cheng, col. 23, lines 56-60 “UE may stop the T319 timer in response to reception of any of a RRCResume, RRCSetup, RRCRelease, RRCRelease with suspendConfig or RRCReject message and upon cell re-selection. When the timer expires, the UE may enter an RRC idle state”).
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 11, (Previously Presented) Cheng in view of Yang discloses The UE of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform the relay reselection or cell reselection in response to detecting an RLF on the PC5 link between the UE and the relay node or receiving the notification message from the relay node., as Yang further discloses that the remote terminal, based on the auxiliary information in the first notification message, may instead determine to disconnect from the relay terminal device, and that a remote terminal that disconnects from its relay performs a relay reselection or a cell reselection, which means that the UE performs the relay reselection or cell reselection in response to receiving the notification message from the relay node (Yang, para [0119], “If the remote terminal device determines to disconnect from the relay terminal device based on the auxiliary information carried in the first notification message, the remote terminal device disconnects from the relay terminal device”; Yang, para [0123], “disconnecting from the relay terminal device and performing a relay reselection and/or triggering a connection reestablishment and/or performing a cell reselection”).
Claim 16 recites its triggers joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is present. The alternative relied on is receiving the notification message from the relay node, which is the limitation mapped above.
Therefore, Cheng and Yang are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 17, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) setup request message to a base station via a relay node; starting a timer for RRC setup request in response to transmitting the RRC setup request message; receiving a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC setup request message; and determining to keep a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment request message to a base station via a relay node; starting a timer for RRC reestablishment request in response to transmitting the RRC reestablishment request message; receiving a notification message from the relay node after transmitting the RRC reestablishment request message; and stopping the timer for RRC reestablishment request when a pre-specified condition is met, wherein the pre-specified condition comprises the UE determining to maintain a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node in response to receiving the notification message. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 18, (Previously Presented) Cheng in view of Yang discloses The method of claim 18, wherein a serving cell of the UE changes due to a handover of the relay node, an RLF between the relay node and the base station, a cell reselection of the relay node, or an RRC connection failure of the relay node., as Yang further discloses that the link failure at the relay terminal device includes a radio link failure, after which the relay reestablishes its RRC connection in a cell that may differ from its serving cell before the failure and notifies the remote terminal of that change. The remote terminal reaches the base station only through the relay, with the result that a serving cell of the UE changes due to an RLF between the relay node and the base station (Yang, para [0093], “The link failure includes, but is not limited to, at least one of: a RLF; a T310 timer being expired; a T312 timer being expired; an integrity check failure on a SRB1”; Yang, para [0108], “in response to a cell chosen to be reestablished by the relay terminal device is different from the serving cell before the link failure occurs, sending the first notification message to the remote terminal device”; Yang, para [0004], “A UE can realize communication with a base station through the relay by means of another UE without directly connecting to the base station”).
Claim 19 recites its causes joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is present. The alternative relied on is an RLF between the relay node and the base station, which is the limitation mapped above.
Consequently, Cheng and Yang are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 18, (Previously Presented) Cheng in view of Yang discloses The method of claim 18, wherein a notification message indicates at least one of: a handover of the relay node, an RLF between the relay node and the base station, a cell reselection of the relay node, or an RRC connection failure of the relay node., as Yang further discloses that the first notification message carries auxiliary information including the failure cause, which includes a radio link failure of the relay terminal device on its link toward the network device, so that a notification message indicates an RLF between the relay node and the base station (Yang, para [0118], “a failure cause, in which the failure cause includes at least one of: a radio link failure; a T310 timer being expired; a T312 timer being expired”; Yang, para [0093], “the relay terminal device sends the first notification message to the remote terminal device in response to a link failure occurring on the relay terminal device”).
Claim 20 recites its indications joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is indicated. The alternative relied on is an RLF between the relay node and the base station, which is the limitation mapped above.
For these reasons, Cheng and Yang are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 11,903,058 B2) in view of Yang (US 2024/0224364 A1) and further in view of 3GPP TS 24.501 V16.8.0 (2021-04).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) even though Cheng in view of Yang teaches that the remote UE’s RRC connection establishment via the relay UE is driven, and may be stopped, by its upper layers, that the remote UE performs a NAS recovery procedure if the setup timer expires, and that the remote UE communicates with the network through the relay UE over the sidelink: (Cheng, col. 25, lines 5-7, Yang, para [0004]), Cheng in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose transmitting the RRC setup request in response to a first mobility registration update procedure being triggered.
Nevertheless, Cheng in view of Yang and further in view of TS 24.501 discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the RRC setup request in response to a first mobility registration update procedure being triggered. because TS 24.501 teaches that a registered UE initiates the registration procedure for mobility and periodic registration update by sending a REGISTRATION REQUEST message to the AMF, a NAS message that an idle UE can send only after its upper layers have the access stratum establish an RRC connection, which in Cheng’s remote UE is the RRC setup request sent via the relay UE, which means that the UE transmits the RRC setup request in response to a first mobility registration update procedure being triggered (TS 24.501, clause 5.5.1.3.2, “The UE in state 5GMM-REGISTERED shall initiate the registration procedure for mobility and periodic registration update by sending a REGISTRATION REQUEST message to the AMF”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the remote UE of Cheng in view of Yang transmit its RRC setup request via the relay UE when the mobility and periodic registration update procedure of TS 24.501 is triggered. Cheng’s remote UE establishes its RRC connection at the request of its upper layers and falls back to NAS recovery when the setup times out, and TS 24.501 is the NAS specification that defines when those upper layers must send a REGISTRATION REQUEST and so must have an RRC connection established; using the standardized registration triggers as the occasion for Cheng’s relayed setup request is the application of the governing standard to a UE that already implements NAS-driven connection establishment, with the predictable result that a UE served through a relay registers its mobility as any other UE does. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the relay changes only the path of the setup request, not the NAS event that causes it.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) even though Cheng in view of Yang teaches that the remote UE’s serving cell may change during its RRC connection establishment via the relay, upon which the setup timer is stopped, and that the remote UE reaches the base station through the relay UE: (Cheng, col. 25, lines 2-6, Yang, para [0004]), Cheng in view of Yang does not expressly teach prohibiting triggering a second mobility registration update procedure during the RRC setup in response to a serving cell change of the UE.
Nonetheless, Cheng in view of Yang and further in view of TS 24.501 discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to prohibit triggering a second mobility registration update procedure during the RRC setup in response to a serving cell change of the UE. as TS 24.501 describes that when a cell change into a new tracking area occurs before the ongoing mobility registration update procedure is completed, the UE aborts that procedure and re-initiates it, rather than starting a second, parallel registration procedure alongside the first, such that the UE prohibits triggering a second mobility registration update procedure during the RRC setup in response to a serving cell change of the UE (TS 24.501, clause 5.5.1.3.7, “If a cell change into a new tracking area occurs before the registration procedure for mobility and periodic registration update is completed, the registration procedure for mobility and periodic registration update shall be aborted and re-initiated immediately”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the remote UE of Cheng in view of Yang handle a serving cell change during its relayed RRC setup as TS 24.501 prescribes, by aborting and re-initiating the single ongoing registration procedure rather than triggering a second one. Cheng already treats a cell change during the setup as an event that ends the pending attempt, and TS 24.501 defines the single-procedure handling of a cell change during an in-progress registration update as the standard behavior of the NAS layer; applying that handling to Cheng’s relayed setup is the use of the governing standard’s known technique, with the predictable result that only one registration procedure is in progress at a time. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the relay path does not alter the NAS layer’s procedure handling.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 6, (Previously Presented) Cheng in view of Yang and further in view of TS 24.501 discloses The UE of claim 6, wherein the first mobility registration update is triggered in response to a tracking area change or an expiry of a periodic registration timer., as TS 24.501 further discloses that the registration procedure for mobility and periodic registration update is initiated when the UE detects entering a tracking area not in its registered list, and when the periodic registration updating timer T3512 expires, whereby the first mobility registration update is triggered in response to a tracking area change (TS 24.501, clause 5.5.1.3.2, “a) when the UE detects entering a tracking area that is not in the list of tracking areas that the UE previously registered in the AMF; b) when the periodic registration updating timer T3512 expires in 5GMM-IDLE mode”).
Claim 8 recites its triggers joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is present. The alternative relied on is a tracking area change, which is the limitation mapped above.
Thus, Cheng, Yang and TS 24.501 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) even though Cheng in view of Yang teaches that the remote UE starts its setup timer only upon transmission of the RRC setup request, so that the timer is not running before that transmission, and that the remote UE reaches the base station through the relay UE: (Cheng, col. 25, lines 1-2, Yang, para [0004]), Cheng in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose transmitting the RRC setup request in response to that a serving cell of the UE changes to a cell outside of a tracking area configured for the UE when a timer for RRC setup request is not running.
Conversely, Cheng in view of Yang and further in view of TS 24.501 discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the RRC setup request in response to that a serving cell of the UE changes to a cell outside of a tracking area configured for the UE when at least one of the following conditions is met: a timer for RRC setup request is not running; the UE does not perform a connection setup procedure; or the UE determines to maintain a PC5 link between the UE and the relay node. in that TS 24.501 shows the UE initiating the registration procedure for mobility and periodic registration update, and so the RRC setup request that carries its REGISTRATION REQUEST, when it detects entering a tracking area that is not in the list of tracking areas in which it is registered, a UE that is in idle at that moment having no setup timer running, with the result that the UE transmits the RRC setup request in response to that a serving cell of the UE changes to a cell outside of a tracking area configured for the UE when a timer for RRC setup request is not running (TS 24.501, clause 5.5.1.3.2, “The UE in state 5GMM-REGISTERED shall initiate the registration procedure for mobility and periodic registration update by sending a REGISTRATION REQUEST message to the AMF, a) when the UE detects entering a tracking area that is not in the list of tracking areas that the UE previously registered in the AMF”).
Claim 9 recites its conditions joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is met. The alternative relied on is a timer for RRC setup request is not running, which is the limitation mapped above.
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the remote UE of Cheng in view of Yang transmit its RRC setup request via the relay UE when, with no setup timer running, its serving cell changes to a cell outside the tracking area for which it is registered, as TS 24.501 requires. Cheng’s remote UE establishes its RRC connection when its upper layers request it, and TS 24.501 defines entry into an unregistered tracking area as an event on which those upper layers must send a REGISTRATION REQUEST; applying that standardized trigger to Cheng’s relayed setup request is the use of the governing standard’s known technique, with the predictable result that a relayed UE that crosses a tracking area boundary re-registers as any other UE does. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the relay changes only the path over which the setup request travels.
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 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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
