DETAILED ACTION
Claims 20, 22-25, 27, 29-44, 46-47, 49, 59, 65, 67 and 74-99 are pending in this application and claims 1-19, 21, 26, 28, 45, 48, 50-58, 60-64, 66 and 68-73 are cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on 03/01/2022 (UNITED KINGDOM 2202813.8) and 05/25/2022 (UNITED KINGDOM 2207705.1).
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 08/29/2024, 09/02/2025, 11/25/2025 and 07/20/206 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 65 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As the specification discloses (¶[0046]), "features implemented in hardware may be implemented in software, and vice versa. Any reference to software and hardware features herein should be construed accordingly”. Claim 65 recites “Apparatus for a relay User Equipment, UE, node… comprising: one or more processor units configured to:” comprise a software pro-se because one or more processor units can be implemented in software which is not directed to non-statutory subject matter. Similar issue exists in claim 67.
Claim Objections
Claims 34, 38, 43, 46, 49, 65, 67, 90 and 99 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 38 line 13 recites “relay UE node;” suggests amend to “relay UE node; or” with a “or” statement to avoid grammatical error issue. Similar issue exist in claim 34 line 8; claim 43 line 8; claim 46 line 13; claim 49 line 5; claim 90 line 8 and claim 99 line 9.
Claim 65 line 1 recites “apparatus” suggests amend to “An apparatus” for clarity purpose. Similar issue exists in claim 67 line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 20, 22-25, 27, 29-44, 46-47, 49, 59, 65, 67 and 74-99 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 line 9 recites “after detecting” is vague and indefinite because there is no detecting step in the claim limitation. Similar issue exists in claim 40 line 11 (detected); claim 59 line 10, claim 65 line 8 and claim 67 line 7.
Claim 26 line 4 recites “RLF” is unclear what RLF stands for because whether the RLF refers to Radio link failure or anther option of type of link issue. Examiner suggests applicant to amend the abbreviation “RLF” to “Radio Link Failure (RLF)” for clarity purpose. Similar issue exists in claim 29 line 4, claim 30 line 2, claim 34 line 7; claim 41 line 3, claim 43 lines 6-7, claim 88 line 3, claim 90 lines 7-8, claim 97 line 3; and claim 99 lines 7-8.
Claim 31 line 2 recites “short-term or a long term issue” is vague and indefinite because in the claim language does not define what is consider “short-term issue” and “long-term issue”.
Claim 36 line 3 recites “MAC CE” is unclear what is the abbreviation of “MAC CE” stands for.
Claim 36 line 5 recites “RRC” is unclear what is the abbreviation of “RRC” stands for.
Claim 39 line 2 recites “(re)selection)” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is abbreviation of “re” refers to. Examiner suggest applicant to amend “(re)selection” to “reselection or selection” if intend to reselection and selection limitation. Similar issue exists in claim 49 line 4; claim 82 line 2 and claim 95 line 2.
Claim 83 line 2 recites “in the case” is lack of antecedent basis issue because there is no case disclosure in the previous limitations.
Since the dependent claims 22-25, 27, 29-39, 41-44, 46-47, 49 and 74-99 depend on own corresponding independent claims, they are rejected for the same reason as described hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20, 22-23, 25, 27, 29-30, 32, 34-44, 46-47, 49, 59, 65, 67 and 74-99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paladugu et al. (US 2021/0385714 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Paladugu teaches a method for signalling a link issue in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a relay User Equipment, UE, node and a plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes includes a plurality of UEs, the relay UE node for relaying data between a first UE of the plurality of UE and a second UE of the plurality of UEs using PC5 links established with the relay UE node (wireless network 500 include Relay UE 506, and remote UEs 502 and 503; and Relay UE 506 relay the remote UE 502 and 503 using PC5 interface or sidelink see Paladugu: Fig.5; ¶[0068]), the method at the relay UE node including:
after detecting a link issue associated with at least one of a first PC5 link established between the first UE and the relay UE node, and a second PC5 link established between the second UE and the relay UE node, providing link issue feedback information for the detected link issue (after the relay UE detects a link failure or initiates a reestablishment procedure, the relay UE may release or suspend the PC5 link (e.g., remote UE PC5 link) with active remote UE(s) and send indication to the remote UE(s) inform unable to perform data relaying see Paladugu: ¶[0099]), the link issue feedback information including information for identifying a type of the detected link issue (the failure may be caused by Uu radio link failure (RLF), Uu handover failure, Uu reconfiguration failure, etc. see Paladugu: ¶[0098]);
sending the link issue feedback information to at least one of the first UE and the second UE (send an indication to the remote UE(s) informing the remote UE(s) that the relay UE is unable to perform data relaying see Paladugu: ¶[0099-0100]).
Regarding claim 22, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further including determining at least one of the plurality of UEs associated with one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue, wherein sending the link issue feedback information includes sending the link issue feedback information to the determined at least one of the plurality of UEs (send an indication to the remote UE(s) informing the remote UE(s) that the relay UE is unable to perform data relaying see Paladugu: ¶[0099-0100]).
Regarding claim 23, Paladugu taught the method of claim 22 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the determined at least one of the plurality of UEs includes at least one of a source UE and a destination UE (UE relay 506 and remote UE 502 or 503 see Paladugu: Fig.5).
Regarding claim 25, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the link issue feedback information further includes an identifier for identifying the at least one of the first UE and the second UE to which the link issue feedback information is to be sent (send an indication to the remote UE(s) informing the remote UE(s) that the relay UE is unable to perform data relaying see Paladugu: ¶[0099-0100]).
Regarding claim 27, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein sending the link issue feedback information comprises sending the link issue feedback information to all of the plurality of UEs connected to the relay UE (send an indication to the remote UE(s) informing the remote UE(s) that the relay UE is unable to perform data relaying see Paladugu: ¶[0099-0100]).
Regarding claim 29, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the detected link issue is at least one of a plurality of different types of link issue, the plurality of different types of link issue including: handover, congestion, link degradation, Radio Link Failure, RLF (For examples, the failure may be caused by Uu radio link failure (RLF), Uu handover failure, Uu reconfiguration failure, etc. see Paladugu: ¶[0098]).
Regarding claim 30, Paladugu taught the method of claim 29 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the congestion type of link issue includes at least one of: Radio Bearer, RB, congestion; RLC channel congestion; link level congestion; or higher layer congestion (This may provide the source network entity with a dynamic control over the DAPS RLC channels configuration, where the configuration may be based at least in part on the loading and traffic condition see Paladugu: ¶[0081]).
Regarding claim 32, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the link issue feedback information includes flow information for identifying one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue, wherein the flow information includes a flow identifier for identifying the one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue (The relay UE may optionally send an indication to the remote UE(s) informing the remote UE(s) that the relay UE is unable to perform data relaying. In response to the indication, the remote UE(s) may stay connected to the relay UE, but may discontinue to transmit data to the relay UE (e.g., suspending the PC5 link), or the remote UE may release the PC5 link and try to connect to other relay UE or network entity see Paladugu: ¶[0099]).
Regarding claim 34, Paladugu taught the method of claim 32 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the flow identifier, ID, is one of the following: Data Radio Bearer, DRB, identifier, ID (DRB configuration for the remote UE see Paladugu: ¶[0081]); Signalling Radio Bearer, SRB, ID; Sidelink, SL, DRB ID; SL SRB ID; RLC bearer ID; RLC channel ID; link ID for identifying a link associated with the detected link issue.
Regarding claim 35, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein sending the link issue feedback information comprises sending a link issue signalling message including the link issue feedback information (send an indication to the remote UE(s) informing the remote UE(s) that the relay UE is unable to perform data relaying see Paladugu: ¶[0099-0100]).
Regarding claim 36, Paladugu taught the method of claim 35 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the link issue signalling message is sent in a container, the container including one of: MAC CE container; Sidelink Relay Adaptation Protocol, SRAP, control packet data unit, PDU; or RRC signalling (where the control plane in the PC5 interface may include one or more of RRC, PDCP, RLC, MAC sublayers, and the physical layer see Paladugu: ¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 37, Paladugu taught the method of claim 35 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein sending the link issue feedback information comprises sending the link issue signalling message by one of unicast communication, or multicast communication or broadcast communication (the message may be a broadcast indication that is broadcast over sidelink or may be a unicast message that is transmitted to the remote UE over sidelink see Paladugu: ¶[0065]).
Regarding claim 38, Paladugu taught the method of claim 35 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the link issue signalling message includes an Information Element for identifying a type of the detected link issue, and further includes at least one of: Information Element for identifying one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue; Information Element for indicating a type of the link issue signalling message; Information Element for identifying the at least one of the plurality of UEs to which the link issue feedback information is to be sent; Information Element for indicating a reason for the detected link issue ( the remote UE 1102 may receive an explicit indication of a relay UE change via an information element (IE) in the handover command from the source network entity 1104, where the source network entity 1104 may explicitly inform the remote UE 1102 that its relay UE has changed see Paladugu: ¶[0093]); Information Element for indicating a Quality of Service, QoS, or priority level ensured by the relay UE node; Information Element for indicating the magnitude or level of the detected link issue.
Regarding claim 39, Paladugu taught the method of claim 38 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the type of the link issue signalling message includes one of: a link issue feedback type (channel condition feedback transmitted by the UE see Paladugu: ¶[0055]); a (re)selection feedback type; or a link status modification feedback type.
Regarding claim 40, Paladugu teaches a method for processing link issue feedback information at a first User Equipment, UE, in a wireless communication system, the link issue feedback information signalling a link issue in the wireless communication system, the wireless communication system including the first UE, a relay UE node and a second UE, the relay UE node for relaying data between the first UE and the second UE using PC5 links (wireless network 500 include Relay UE 506, and remote UEs 502 and 503; and Relay UE 506 relay the remote UE 502 and 503 using PC5 interface or sidelink see Paladugu: Fig.5; ¶[0068]), the method including:
receiving link issue feedback information from the relay UE node, the link issue feedback information including information for identifying a type of a detected link issue associated with at least one of a first PC5 link established between the first UE and the relay UE node, and a second PC5 link established between the second UE and the relay UE node and for the at least one of the first PC5 link and the second PC5 link associated with the detected link issue, an identifier of the UE connected to the PC5 link associated with the detected link issue (after the relay UE detects a link failure or initiates a reestablishment procedure, the relay UE may release or suspend the PC5 link (e.g., remote UE PC5 link) with active remote UE(s) and send indication to the remote UE(s) inform unable to perform data relaying and the failure may be caused by Uu radio link failure (RLF), Uu handover failure, Uu reconfiguration failure, etc. see Paladugu: ¶[0098-0099]);
processing the link issue feedback information to determine the detected link issue and one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue based on the detected link issue, taking an action at the first UE (send an indication to the remote UE(s) informing the remote UE(s) that the relay UE is unable to perform data relaying see Paladugu: ¶[0099-0100]).
Regarding claim 41, Paladugu taught the method of claim 40 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the link issue is at least one of a plurality of different types of link issue, the plurality of types of link issue including: handover, congestion, link degradation, RLF (For examples, the failure may be caused by Uu radio link failure (RLF), Uu handover failure, Uu reconfiguration failure, etc. see Paladugu: ¶[0098]), short-term or long-term link issue.
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 is rejected for the same reason as claim 32 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 is rejected for the same reason as claim 34 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 is rejected for the same reason as claim 35 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 46, claim 46 is rejected for the same reason as claim 38 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 47, claim 47 is rejected for the same reason as claim 39 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 49, Paladugu taught the method of claim 40 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein taking an action at the first UE includes one of: releasing a link associated with the one or more impacted communication flows and performing (re)selection; waiting for new link issue feedback information; adapting transmission of data over the one or more impacted communication flows (receiving a handover failure notification from the relay UE; releasing the second configuration for connecting to the second network entity; and resuming data transmission using one or more non-DAPS dedicated radio bearers on the first network entity see Paladugu: ¶[0162]).
Regarding claim 59, claim 59 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Claim 59 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 20 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 65, claim 65 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Claim 65 discloses apparatus that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 20 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 67, claim 67 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 40 as described hereinabove. Claim 67 discloses apparatus that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 40 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 74, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the link issue feedback information includes flow information for identifying one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue (The relay UE may optionally send an indication to the remote UE(s) informing the remote UE(s) that the relay UE is unable to perform data relaying. In response to the indication, the remote UE(s) may stay connected to the relay UE, but may discontinue to transmit data to the relay UE (e.g., suspending the PC5 link), or the remote UE may release the PC5 link and try to connect to other relay UE or network entity see Paladugu: ¶[0099]).
Regarding claim 75, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the link issue feedback information includes, for at least one of the first PC5 link and the second PC5 link associated with the detected link issue (after the relay UE detects a link failure or initiates a reestablishment procedure, the relay UE may release or suspend the PC5 link (e.g., remote UE PC5 link) with active remote UE(s) see Paladugu: ¶[0099]), an identifier of the UE connected to the PC5 link associated with the detected link issue.
Regarding claim 76, Paladugu taught the method of claim 75 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein the identifier of the UE is a L2-ID (relay UE ID see Paladugu: ¶[0093]).
Regarding claim 77, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein sending the link issue feedback information comprises sending the link issue feedback information in a PC5-RRC message (the relay UE 1106 may send an indication to the remote UE 1102 informing the handover success and/or the network entity change (e.g., the target network entity 1105 CGI and/or PCI information) via a new PC5-RRC procedure or PC5 link modification procedure see Paladugu: ¶[0094]).
Regarding claim 78, claim 78 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 74 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 79, claim 79 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 76 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 80, claim 80 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 77 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 81, Paladugu taught the method of claim 81 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein taking an action at the first UE includes releasing the one or more impacted communication flows (the remote UE 1502 may perform PC5 link (e.g., link with the relay UE 1506) release and/or modification (e.g., PC5 link may be reused) see Paladugu: ¶[0097]).
Regarding claim 82, Paladugu taught the method of claim 40 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein taking an action at the first UE includes performing (re)selection after releasing a link associated with the one or more impacted communication flows (the remote UE 1502 may perform PC5 link (e.g., link with the relay UE 1506) release and/or modification (e.g., PC5 link may be reused) see Paladugu: ¶[0097]).
Regarding claim 83, Paladugu taught the method of claim 40 as described hereinabove. Paladugu further teaches wherein taking an action at the first UE includes releasing the first PC5 link in the case where the detected link issue is associated with the first PC5 link (the remote UE 1502 may perform PC5 link (e.g., link with the relay UE 1506) release and/or modification (e.g., PC5 link may be reused) see Paladugu: ¶[0097]).
Regarding claim 84, claim 84 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 74 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 85, claim 85 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 75 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 86, claim 86 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 76 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 87, claim 87 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 77 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 88, claim 88 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 29 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 89, claim 89 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 32 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 90, claim 90 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 34 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 91, claim 91 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 74 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 92, claim 92 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 76 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 93, claim 93 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 77 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 94, claim 94 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 81 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 95, claim 95 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 82 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 96, claim 96 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 83 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 97, claim 97 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 41 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 98, claim 98 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 42 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 99, claim 99 is rejected for the same reason as the method of claim 43 as described hereinabove.
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.
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(a) 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.
Claims 24, 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al. (US 2021/0385714 A1) in view of Kuo (US 2021/0409263 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Paladugu taught the method of claim 22 as described hereinabove. Paladugu does not explicitly teaches wherein determining at least one of the plurality of UEs associated with the one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue comprises using a mapping table to map the one or more impacted communication flows to at least one of the plurality of UEs.
However, Kuo teaches the wherein determining at least one of the plurality of UEs associated with the one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue comprises using a mapping table to map the one or more impacted communication flows to at least one of the plurality of UEs (The UE-to-UE Relay maintains a mapping table containing the mapping of peer UEs L2 IDs and the corresponding Relay-L2 IDs that have been self-assigned and see receiving the massage in it mapping table and assign self a new Layer-2 ID (e.g. R-L2 ID-b) for UE3 and stores the mapping between UE3's L2 ID and R-L2 ID-b see Kuo: ¶[0286]; ¶[0289]) in order to handle sidelink radio link failure in a wireless communication system (see Kuo: ¶[0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Paladugu to include (or to use, etc.) the wherein determining at least one of the plurality of UEs associated with the one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue comprises using a mapping table to map the one or more impacted communication flows to at least one of the plurality of UEs as taught by Kuo in order to handle sidelink radio link failure in a wireless communication system (see Kuo: ¶[0002]).
Regarding claim 31, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu does not explicitly teaches wherein the detected link issue is one of a short-term or a long-term issue.
However, Kuo teaches the wherein the detected link issue is one of a short-term or a long-term issue (timer associating with the direct link establishment reject message (corresponding link issue) see Kuo: ¶[0207];¶[0213]; ¶[0334]) in order to handle sidelink radio link failure in a wireless communication system (see Kuo: ¶[0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Paladugu to include (or to use, etc.) the wherein the detected link issue is one of a short-term or a long-term issue as taught by Kuo in order to handle sidelink radio link failure in a wireless communication system (see Kuo: ¶[0002]).
Regarding claim 33, Paladugu taught the method of claim 20 as described hereinabove. Paladugu does not explicitly teaches determining one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue using a mapping table to map the detected link issue to one or more impacted communication flows identified by a respective flow identifier.
However, Kuo teaches the determining one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue using a mapping table to map the detected link issue to one or more impacted communication flows identified by a respective flow identifier (The UE-to-UE Relay maintains a mapping table containing the mapping of peer UEs L2 IDs and the corresponding Relay-L2 IDs that have been self-assigned and see receiving the massage in it mapping table and assign self a new Layer-2 ID (e.g. R-L2 ID-b) for UE3 and stores the mapping between UE3's L2 ID and R-L2 ID-b see Kuo: ¶[0286]; ¶[0289]) in order to handle sidelink radio link failure in a wireless communication system (see Kuo: ¶[0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Paladugu to include (or to use, etc.) the determining one or more communication flows impacted by the detected link issue using a mapping table to map the detected link issue to one or more impacted communication flows identified by a respective flow identifier as taught by Kuo in order to handle sidelink radio link failure in a wireless communication system (see Kuo: ¶[0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUANG W LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7AM-5PMET.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
September 24, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights