DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on April 6, 2026. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 2/19/2026 has been considered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb et al. (US 2014/0192781) in view of Kaur et al. (US 10,531,365).
Regarding Claim 1, Teyeb teaches a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
identifying a time period in which a channel parameter condition changes based at least in part on the relay transmissions (“Control information, e.g., mobility related parameters, are modified or updated depending on the detected mobility state of the mobile RN. UE and mobile RN operation is then controlled in accordance with the modified or updated control information associated with the mobility state of the mobile RN” – See [0069]; “The mobile relay node mobility state may be communicated to UEs in a connected mode via dedicated messages, e.g., by Radio Resource Control, RRC, signaling, or broadcasted in an additional information element, IE, in a System Information Block, SIB” – See [0098]; Based on a received SIB received from the relay node (relay transmission), the UE identifies an updated mobility state (changed channel parameter condition)); and
modifying a channel estimation measurement and reporting schedule based at least in part on the time period in which the channel parameter condition changes (“in another non-limiting example embodiment, the mobile RN, upon detecting that it is entering the moving mobility state, changes the measurement configuration of UEs it is serving to stop or reduce measurement reporting. This may be realized in several example ways … A third example way is to introduce a new IE to inform UEs to stop measurements altogether, except measurements for the serving cell. The IE may include addition information such as for how long the UEs should disable the measurement reports” – See [0104]; The UE modifies its measurement and reporting schedule (e.g., by stopping measurements and reporting in one example) in response to the channel parameter condition changes).
Teyeb does not explicitly teach determining a transmission schedule associated with one or more relay nodes performing relay transmissions on a channel, wherein the identifying is based at least in part on the transmission schedule.
However, Kaur teaches determining a transmission schedule associated with one or more relay nodes performing relay transmissions on a channel, wherein the identifying is based at least in part on the transmission schedule (“The relay WTRU may respond with an acknowledgement message with optional configuration parameters to indicate the SIB transfer mechanism. The SIB transfer mechanism may include the schedule with which the SIBs are forwarded. For example, the SIBs may be forwarded on reserved frames, and the relay WTRU may indicate the DFN offset number of the DFN pattern when the SIBs are transmitted” – See col. 33, lines 12-19; The UE determines a transmission schedule for SIBs (transmission schedule associated with one or more relay nodes performing relay transmissions on a channel), in order to identify when the SIBs are transmitted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb to include determining a transmission schedule associated with one or more relay nodes performing relay transmissions on a channel, wherein the identifying is based at least in part on the transmission schedule. Motivation for doing so would be to provide the UE with the necessary information so it can know how to acquire the SIBs/relay transmissions (See Kaur, col. 33, lines 39-40).
Regarding Claim 3, Teyeb in view of Kaur teaches the method of Claim 1. Kaur further teaches receiving a configuration signal identifying the transmission schedule (“A remote WTRU that has just joined the relay and desires to read the relay SIBs should first acquire the SL-MIB message to obtain the transmitted SIBs and the SIB schedule to know how it can acquire the SIBs” – See col. 33, lines 37-40; The UE receives an MIB (configuration signal) identifying the transmission schedule of the SIBs).
Claims 4, 7, and 10 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claims 6, 9, and 12 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Claims 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb et al. (US 2014/0192781) in view of Kaur et al. (US 10,531,365) and further in view of Palanki et al. (US 2010/0167743).
Regarding Claim 2, Teyeb in view of Kaur teaches the method of Claim 1. Teyeb and Kaur do not explicitly teach detecting a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel, wherein the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions.
However, Palanki teaches detecting a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel, wherein the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions (“In one design, a relay UE may slowly ramp up the transmit power of a discovery pilot in order to mitigate disruption to nearby UEs. This slow ramp up may prevent outage of client UEs as well as other UEs in the vicinity of the relay UE. The slow ramp up may be especially applicable if the discovery pilot comprises the primary and secondary synchronization signals sent on the downlink or the sounding reference signal sent on the uplink” – See [0069]; “The client UE may measure the discovery pilots from the relay UEs (step 4) and may select one relay UE to serve as a relay station for the client UE (step 5)” – See [0044]; Relay nodes ramp up transmission power of discovery pilot transmissions on the channel. The UE measures/detects the discovery pilots from the relay nodes and selects one of them as the serving relay node based on the measurements).
By modifying Teyeb’s UE to select a serving relay based on a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel, the UE can then modify its measurement/reporting schedule in the time period based on the channel parameter conditions of the serving relay. Accordingly, the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb to include detecting a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel, wherein the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions. Motivation for doing so would be to prevent outage of other UEs in the vicinity of the relay node (See Palanki, [0069]).
Claims 5, 8, and 11 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the remarks, Applicant argues “The Office Action analogizes the UE of Teyeb identifying an updated mobility state of a mobile relay node to the claimed ‘identifying, based at least in part on the transmission schedule, a time period in which a channel parameter condition changes based at least in part on the relay transmissions.’ However, identifying a mobility state indicator is not the same as identifying ‘a time period in which a channel parameter condition changes,’ as recited in independent claim 1. Further, the Office Action analogizes the ‘mobility related parameters [that] are modified or updated’ of Teyeb with the ‘channel parameter condition [that] changes.’ But Teyeb describes that the mobility related parameters are modified ‘depending on the detected mobility state of the mobile RN,’ and not ‘based at least in part on the relay transmissions,’ as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, Teyeb does not teach or suggest ‘identifying a time period in which a channel parameter condition changes based at least in part on the relay transmissions,’ as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, Teyeb cannot be relied upon to teach or suggest the features of independent claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “time period” is vague and recited with a high level of generality. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “time period in which a channel parameter condition changes” can include any point in time in which a channel parameter condition change is identified. In the case of Teyeb, a time period in which a channel parameter condition change is identified is the point in time at which an SIB is received. The mobility state of a mobile relay node causes changes to the channel parameter conditions. The UE determines when the channel parameter condition changes (i.e., a time period in which a channel parameter condition changes) when it receives an SIB/RRC signaling from the relay node indicating updated/modified parameters (“Control information, e.g., mobility related parameters, are modified or updated depending on the detected mobility state of the mobile RN. UE and mobile RN operation is then controlled in accordance with the modified or updated control information associated with the mobility state of the mobile RN” – See [0069]; “The mobile relay node may indicate its mobility state to UEs under its control” – See [0096]; “The mobile relay node mobility state may be communicated to UEs in a connected mode via dedicated messages, e.g., by Radio Resource Control, RRC, signaling, or broadcasted in an additional information element, IE, in a System Information Block, SIB” – See [0098]).
Furthermore, the identifying is “based at least in part on the relay transmissions” since the UE identifies the changes in response to signaling received from the relay node. In other words, the UE receives signaling from the relay node (relay transmissions) which indicates the updated/modified channel parameters.
On pages 7-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues “The Office Action alleges that, ‘[b]y modifying Teyeb’s UE to select a serving relay based on a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel,’ as described by Palanki, ‘the UE [of Teyeb] can then modify its measurement/reporting schedule in the time period based on the channel parameter conditions of the serving relay.’ Office Action, p. 5 (emphasis added). That is, the Office Action alleges a combination of Teyeb and Palanki such that (1) a UE selects a serving relay based on a ramp up of a relay transmission, and (2) the UE modifies its measurement/reporting schedule based on channel parameter conditions. However, the Office Action has not shown that either (1) or (2) is the same as ‘wherein the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions,’ as recited in dependent claim 2. That is, neither selecting a serving relay nor selecting a measurement/reporting schedule has been shown to be the same as ‘identifying a time period in which a channel parameter condition changes based at least in part on the relay transmissions,’ much less ‘based at least in part on [a] detected ramp up of the relay transmissions,’ as recited in dependent claim 2. Thus, the Office Action has not shown that the combination of Teyeb and Palanki teaches or suggests the features of dependent claim 2.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 2 does not recite precisely how the time period is identified based on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions. In the combination of Palanki with Teyeb, the UE selects a relay node based on a detected ramp up (“In one design, a relay UE may slowly ramp up the transmit power of a discovery pilot in order to mitigate disruption to nearby UEs. This slow ramp up may prevent outage of client UEs as well as other UEs in the vicinity of the relay UE. The slow ramp up may be especially applicable if the discovery pilot comprises the primary and secondary synchronization signals sent on the downlink or the sounding reference signal sent on the uplink” – See [0069] of Palanki; “The client UE may measure the discovery pilots from the relay UEs (step 4) and may select one relay UE to serve as a relay station for the client UE (step 5)” – See [0044] of Palanki) and, after selecting the relay node, identifies a channel parameter condition changes based at least in part on the relay transmissions (See cited portions of paragraphs [0069], [0096], and [0098] from Teyeb cited above).
Thus, if a UE selects a relay node based on a detected ramp up and identifies a time period in which a channel parameter condition changes based at least in part on the relay transmissions from the selected relay node, then it follows that the time period is identified based on the detected ramp up, since the detected ramp up was the criterion used to initially select the relay node with which to connect.
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 Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights