CTNF 18/789,783 CTNF 89658 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. This action is response to the application filed on 07/31/2024. Claims 1-12 are pending and herein considered. Drawings 06-37 AIA The drawings were received on 07/31/2024 . These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner . Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 07/31/2024, 03/03/2025, 07/16/2025 and 11/05/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, line 4; and claim 9, line 3, recites "RRC"; the acronym “RRC” is used without spelling out in full at first occurrence in the claims, suggests change to "Radio Resource Control (RRC)" . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6, line 4, recites “SL-RLCo”; the acronym “SL-RLCo” is used without spelling out in full at first occurrence in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated Chang et al. (U.S 2024/0389186); hereinafter “Chang” cited with provisional 63/222,303) in view of NPL-HUAWEI et al., "RRC connection management for L2 sidelink relay", Agenda Item: 8.7.2.1, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #116bis-electronic, R2-2201510, Online, January 17 - 25, 2022; hereinafter “HUAWEI -R2-2201510” . For citation purposes, hereinafter, the Office Action refers to the cited by Chang et al. with provisional 63/222,303, which qualifies as prior art date. For claim 1 : Chang discloses a sidelink communication apparatus, applicable to a second terminal as a target relay terminal for direct to indirect path switch of a first terminal as a remote terminal (see Chang, at least figure 4; Dired to indirect path switch for Relay UE RRC CONNECTED) , the apparatus comprising: a first receiver configured to receive an RRC reconfiguration complete (RRCReconfigurationComplete) message from the first terminal (see Chang, at least figure 4, step 6; receive an RRCReconfiguration Cornplete message) ; first initiating processor circuitry configured to initiate an RRC connection setup procedure or an RRC resume procedure (see Chang, at least figure 4, page 5, option C; the relay UE would need to perform RRC establishment or Resume procedure) ; and a first transmitter configured to transmit a first indication information to the first terminal when the RRC connection setup procedure or the RRC resume procedure fails (see Chang, at least figure 4, page 6, option C; the benefit of this procedure is that the selected relay UE (that may be in RRC IDLE or INACTIVE) may have a better PCS link (or Uu link) than one that is RRC connected) . Chang further discloses a new PC5-RRC message to inform the remote UE when the relay UE's Uu link is below the configured threshold. This could be used to trigger the remote UE to send a measurement report to the gNB (see Chang, at least option 1, page 3), but does not explicitly disclose initiate an RRC connection setup procedure or an RRC resume procedure. HUAWEI -R2-2201510, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses Chang fails: a PC5-RRC message can be used for sending indication to the remote UE upon Uu RLF/Relay UE HO, which may trigger Remote UE’s relay reselection which the Remote UE must trigger RRC reestablishment after being informed with Relay UE’s Uu RLF/HO. If there are multiple Candidate Relay UEs, the Remote UE can select another Relay UE to send the msg3. While for some cases when the remote UE can only connect to the current relay UE (see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by HUAWEI -R2-2201510. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where the network can judge whether to allow the access of the relay UE properly. For claim 2 : In addition to rejection in claim 2, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose wherein, the first indication information being used to indicate that the RRC connection setup procedure or the RRC resume procedure of the second terminal fails message (see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3; the Relay UE can simply release the PC5 connection with the connected Remote UE to avoid Remote UE waiting endlessly. However, assuming the remote UE decides to keep PC5 connection with the relay UE after receiving Relay UE’s RLF/HO indication via PC-5 RRC because the Remote UE has no other Relay UE to reselect, it can only perform RRC re-establishment via the old relay UE after the Relay UE resume its Uu link after RRC reestablishment/HO) . The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where the network can judge whether to allow the access of the relay UE properly. For claim 3 : In addition to rejection in claim 3, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose wherein, the first indication information is a PC5-RRC message (see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3; a PC5-RRC message can be used for sending indication to the remote UE upon Uu RLF/Relay UE HO, which may trigger Remote UE’s relay reselection) . The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where the network can judge whether to allow the access of the relay UE properly. For claims 4 and 8 : In addition to rejection in claims 4 and 8, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose wherein, the PC5-RRC message indicates connection failure or connection rejection (see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3; proposal 6; the Relay UE should either release the PC5 connection or inform the Remote UE with the failure information via PC5-RRC indications) . The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where the network can judge whether to allow the access of the relay UE properly. For claim 5 : In addition to rejection in claim 5, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose a fourth receiver configured to receive an RRC connection setup request message, an RRC resume request message, or an RRC reestablishment request message from the first terminal (see Chang, at least figure 4, page 5, option C; the relay UE would need to perform RRC establishment or Resume procedure or see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3; the Relay UE can simply release the PC5 connection with the connected Remote UE to avoid Remote UE waiting endlessly. However, assuming the remote UE decides to keep PC5 connection with the relay UE after receiving Relay UE’s RLF/HO indication via PC-5 RRC because the Remote UE has no other Relay UE to reselect, it can only perform RRC re-establishment via the old relay UE after the Relay UE resume its Uu link after RRC reestablishment/HO)) ; second initiating processor circuitry configured to initiate an RRC connection setup procedure, or an RRC resume procedure of the second terminal; and a fifth transmitter configured to send a fourth indication information to the first terminal when the RRC connection setup procedure or the RRC resume procedure fails. For claim 6 : In addition to rejection in claim 6, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose wherein, the fourth receiver receives the RRC connection setup request message, the RRC resume request message (see Chang, at least figure 4, page 5, option C; the relay UE would need to perform RRC establishment or Resume procedure or see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3; the Relay UE can simply release the PC5 connection with the connected Remote UE to avoid Remote UE waiting endlessly. However, assuming the remote UE decides to keep PC5 connection with the relay UE after receiving Relay UE’s RLF/HO indication via PC-5 RRC because the Remote UE has no other Relay UE to reselect, it can only perform RRC re-establishment via the old relay UE after the Relay UE resume its Uu link after RRC reestablishment/HO)) ;, or the RRC reestablishment request message by using configuration of SL-RLC0. For claims 7 and 11 : In addition to rejection in claims 7 and 11, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose wherein, the fourth indication information is a PC5-RRC message (see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3; a PC5-RRC message can be used for sending indication to the remote UE upon Uu RLF/Relay UE HO, which may trigger Remote UE’s relay reselection) . The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where the network can judge whether to allow the access of the relay UE properly. For claim 8 : In addition to rejection in claim 8, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose wherein, the PC5-RRC message indicates connection failure or connection rejection (see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3; proposal 6; the Relay UE should either release the PC5 connection or inform the Remote UE with the failure information via PC5-RRC indications) . The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where the network can judge whether to allow the access of the relay UE properly. For claim 9 : For claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a sidelink communication apparatus applicable to a first terminal as a remote terminal which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 remains un-patentable for the same reasons. For claim 10 : In addition to rejection in claim 8, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose wherein, the first indication information being used to notify that the RRC connection setup procedure or the RRC resume procedure of the second terminal fails (see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3, proposal 6; Upon Relay UE’s RRC reestablishment/HO failure, the Relay UE should either release the PC5 connection or inform the Remote UE with the failure information via PC5-RRC indications) . The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where the network can judge whether to allow the access of the relay UE properly. For claim 11 : 11. The apparatus according to claim 9, wherein, the first indication information is a PC5-RRC message . For claim 12 : In addition to rejection in claim 12, Chang- HUAWEI -R2-2201510 further disclose the apparatus further comprising: first triggering processor circuitry configured to trigger the RRC connection reestablishment procedure upon when receiving the first indication information (see HUAWEI -R2-2201510, at least section 2, 2.3; PC5-RRC message can be used for sending indication to the remote UE upon Uu RLF/Relay UE HO, which may trigger Remote UE’s relay reselection. In Rel-17, the group mobility is not to be supported, which means the Relay UE cannot take the Remote UEs together to another cell during HO/RRC reestablishment. Therefore, the Remote UE must trigger RRC reestablishment after being informed with Relay UE’s Uu RLF/HO) . The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where the network can judge whether to allow the access of the relay UE properly. Conclusion The prior arts made or record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosures. Hong et al. (WO 2023146357 A1), discloses if the message sent in the step 316 is the RRC resume message and the CU2 has the NAS message to be sent to the UE, the CU2 sends the RRC reconfiguration request message carrying the NAS container to the UE after the step 317. After that, the UE sends the RRC reconfiguration completion message to the CU2. Thus, the NAS messages sent by the core network are sent to the UE. Alternatively, after the CU2 receives the RRC resume completion message sent by the UE, the CU2 sends a path switching request message to the AMF of the core network, and the AMF sends a message carrying the NAS message to the NG-RAN, and then the NG-RAN sends the NAS message to the UE. Chang et al. (WO-2023014589-A1), discloses the Reconfiguration Complete message transmitted by the remote UE device 108 and received at the target relay UE device 102 triggers the target relay UE device 102 to perform a RRC reestablishment procedure or RRC Resume procedure. The receipt of the relayed Reconfiguration Complete message at the target gNB then triggers the target gNB to transmit the RRC reconfiguration message. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN-HUONG TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5829. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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. /Lan-Huong Truong/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit: 2464 05/30/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 2 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 3 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 4 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 5 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 6 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 7 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 8 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 9 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 18/789,783 Page 10 Art Unit: 2464
Prosecution Insights