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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 9/7/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Examiners Note
If applicant would like to expedite prosecution, the examiner is always available for discussions/proposals that would help advance prosecution. Examiners contact information can be found at the bottom of this office action and applicant is invited to reach out upon reviewing the below action.
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 1, 2, 4-7, 9-10, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and 6) recites the limitation "receive…the at least one SIB" in the final limitation. Prior to this, the claim recites transmitting “a request for at least one SIB” and transmitting “a second request for at least one SIB”. It is unclear if this is referring back to the if the first instance of “at least one SIB”, or the second instance of “at least one SIB”. Further, it is also unclear if the “at least one SIB” recited in both instances is the same SIB or different as the claims do not clearly distinguish this. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one SIB” recited in the final limitation in the claim. Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, and 17-22 depend from claim 1 (and 6) and inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 2 recites “the essential system information” in the final limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as “essential system information” is not previously recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-11, 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0338283, hereinafter Wang) in view of OPPO ("Summary of [AT116bis-e][618][Relay] Remaining issues on relay control plane (OPPO)", 3GPP DRAFT; R2-2201936, 25 January 2022; XP052103287; cited in applicants IDS filed 9/7/24, hereinafter OPPO).
Regarding claims 1 and 6. Wang teaches user equipment (UE) and method for wireless communication (figure 6 item 601, remote UE; further figure 1, 111 remote UE), comprising: a transceiver (figure 1 transceiver 163 part of remote UE 111, further see par. 22) that enables the UE to communicate with a sidelink relay device (figure 1 relay UE 121 and figure 6 relay UE 603) via a sidelink communication channel (figure 1 item 171, sidelink between remote UE 111 and relay UE 121, further see par. 20) and a controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver, and which is configured to cause the UE to (figure 1 item 162 and par. 22): transmit, to the sidelink relay device, a request for at least one system information block (SIB) (figure 6 item 611, par. 31, remote UE sends SI request (SIBX)…relay UE 603 performs L2 forwarding…thus the request is transmitted to the sidelink relay device 603 in order to be forwarded to gNB 602); receive, from the sidelink relay device, the at least one SIB (figure 6 item 632); transmit, to a serving network device (figure 6 item 602, gNB), a second request for at least one SIB (figure 6 item 612+613, remote UE 601 sends SI request “destined to” gNB 602 trough relay device 603..thus reading on a second request transmitted to a serving network device); and receive, via the sidelink communication channel from the sidelink relay device, the at least one SIB. (figure 6 item 671, par. 35) However, Wang does not specifically disclose transmit, to the sidelink relay device, an indication releasing relaying of system information by the sidelink relay device. OPPO discloses issues on the relay control plane and SIB updating in remote UE with relay UEs (section 1 and 2) and is therefore analogous to Wang. Oppo specifically discloses transmit, to the sidelink relay device, an indication releasing relaying of system information by the sidelink relay device (page 15, Remote UE de-configure SI-request w.r.t relay UE implicitly when entering into RRC connected state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the releasing relaying of system information by the sidelink relay device of OPPO into the UE/method of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce unnecessary signaling in the system.
Regarding claims 2 and 7. The combination teaches the UE of claim 1. Wang further teaches wherein the second request is subsequent to the request (Wang figure 6, request 612+613 is subsequent request 611), and the controller is configured to cause the UE to:
transmit, via the transceiver to the sidelink relay device, the request as a first request for system information (Wang figure 6 item 611); and
receive, from the sidelink relay device, the at least one SIB as the essential system information, in response to the first request (figure 6 item 632).
However, Although Wang teaches a first and second request, he does not specifically disclose the first request for system information is transmitted before the device enters the radio resource control connected state.
OPPO discloses issues on the relay control plane and SIB updating in remote UE with relay UEs (section 1 and 2) and is therefore analogous to Wang. OPPO teaches the idea of a first request being transmitted before the remote device enters the radio resource control connected state. (page 3, For SIB-update in case of RRC_IDLE/RRC_INACTIVE (i.e. before RRC Connected), relay-UE to forward only the SI(s) requested by remote UE….thus remote UE has inherently sent a request prior to RRC connected since it is a request while in RRC_IDLE/RRC_INACTIVE. OPPO further teaches a request from the remote UE while in RRC_CONNECTED state on pages 7-8, thus reading on a second request, first request prior to RRC_CONNECTED and second request while in RRC_CONNECTED.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the releasing relaying of system information by the sidelink relay device of OPPO into the UE/method of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce unnecessary signaling in the system.
Regarding claims 4 and 9. Wang further teaches wherein the request for the at least one SIB transmitted to the sidelink relay device comprises a radio resource control message (figure 6, RRC request messages shown, further see par. 5)
Regarding claims 5 and 10. Wang further teaches wherein the second request to the serving network device for the at least one SIB and the response containing the at least one SIB from the serving network device comprise radio resource control messages. (figure 6, RRC request messages shown, further see par. 5)
Regarding claim 11. Wang teaches user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (figure 6 item 603, relay UE; further figure 1, 121 relay UE), the user equipment comprising:
a transceiver (figure 1 transceiver 163 part of relay UE 121, further see par. 22) that enables the UE to communicate with a serving network device via a communication channel and with a remote UE via a sidelink communication channel (figure 1 relay UE 121 and figure 6 relay UE 603, figure 1 item 171, sidelink between remote UE 111 and relay UE 121, figure 1 link 135 between relay UE 121 and gNB 133, further see par. 20); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver, and which is configured to cause the UE to (figure 1 item 162 and par. 22):
subsequently receive, via the transceiver from the remote UE, a request for system information (figure 6 item 611); and
in response to receiving the request: relay the request to the serving network device (figure 6 item 611, par. 31, At step 611, remote UE 601 sends SI (for example, SIBx) Request to gNB 602 through Uu-RRC message. Relay UE 603 performs L2 forwarding);
receive the system information from the serving network device (figure 6 item 631); and
transmit the system information to the remote UE (figure 6 item 632). However, Wang does not specifically disclose receive, via the transceiver, a release from relaying, to the remote UE, system information originating at the serving network device, the release being a required communication from a sidelink-connected remote UE when the remote UE is transitioning to a radio resource control (RRC) connected state; identify that the release is one that is required to be transmitted by RRC connected state protocol, but is not controlling of a need for system information by the remote UE; and ignore the release from relaying system information.
OPPO discloses issues on the relay control plane and SIB updating in remote UE with relay UEs (section 1 and 2) and is therefore analogous to Wang. OPPO specifically discloses receive, via the transceiver, a release from relaying, to the remote UE, system information originating at the serving network device, the release being a required communication from a sidelink-connected remote UE when the remote UE is transitioning to a radio resource control (RRC) connected state (page 15, Remote UE de-configure SI-request w.r.t relay UE implicitly when entering into RRC connected state…thus when entering RRC connected (i.e. when transitioning), the remote UE de configures the relay UE from relaying the SI (i.e. a release from relaying SI to the remote UE)); identify that the release is one that is required to be transmitted by RRC connected state protocol, but is not controlling of a need for system information by the remote UE (page 15, OPPO, mainly for RRC_CONNECTED to notify relay UE it does not need to forward the SIB since network is to be relied…thus it is identified as RRC connected protocol, and not controlling of a need for system information by the remote UE) and ignore the release from relaying system information (page 14, OPPO notes, remote UE notifies relay UE that it does not need to forward the SIB, page 21, OPPO relay UE can do forwarding with or without request from remote UE, thus it could ignore remote UE and forward with or without a request. Ignoring the release is also read on by on demand SIB requests, as they would cause the device to reply to the request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the releasing relaying of system information by the sidelink relay device of OPPO into the UE/method of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce unnecessary signaling in the system.
Regarding claim 12. The combination teaches the limitations of claim 11. Wang further teaches wherein the request comprises a second request that is received after a first request (Wang figure 6, see multiple requests from UE 601 for SIB), and wherein the controller is further configured to cause the UE to:
receive, via the transceiver from the remote device UE, the first request for system essential information that originates at a serving network device (Wang, figure 6 item 611, par. 31, remote UE sends SI request (SIBX));
relay the first request to the serving network device (Wang, figure 6 item 611, par. 31, remote UE sends SI request (SIBX)…relay UE 603 performs L2 forwarding to gNB);
receive the essential system information from the serving network device (figure 6 item 631); and
transmit the system essential information to the remote device, in response to the first request (figure 6 item 632).
However, Wang does not specifically disclose the first request is transmitted before the remote device enters the radio resource control connected state. OPPO discloses issues on the relay control plane and SIB updating in remote UE with relay UEs (section 1 and 2) and is therefore analogous to Wang. OPPO teaches the idea of a first request being transmitted before the remote device enters the radio resource control connected state. (page 3, For SIB-update in case of RRC_IDLE/RRC_INACTIVE (i.e. before RRC Connected), relay-UE to forward only the SI(s) requested by remote UE….thus remote UE has inherently sent a request prior to RRC connected since it is a request while in RRC_IDLE/RRC_INACTIVE. OPPO further teaches a request from the remote UE while in RRC_CONNECTED state on pages 7-8, thus reading on a second request, first request prior to RRC_CONNECTED and second request while in RRC_CONNECTED.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the releasing relaying of system information by the sidelink relay device of OPPO into the UE/method of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce unnecessary signaling in the system.
Regarding claim 13. The combination teaches the UE of claim 12. Wang further teaches wherein the system information comprises at least one system information block (SIB). (Wang, figure 6 item 611, par. 31, remote UE sends SI request…relay UE 603 performs L2 forwarding…thus the request is transmitted to the sidelink relay device 603 in order to be forwarded to gNB 602)
Regarding claim 14. The combination teaches the device UE of claim 13. Wang further teaches wherein the first request is for the at least one SIB (Wang figure 6 item 611) and comprises a radio resource control message. (Wang, figure 6, RRC request messages shown, further see par. 5)
Regarding claim 15. The combination teaches the UE of claim 13, wherein the second request is for the at least one SIB (Wang, figure 6 item 612+613, SI request (SIBX)) and the response containing contains the at least one SIB (figure 6 item 671, par. 35), wherein the second request and the response comprise radio resource control messages. (Wang, figure 6, SIB requests/responses shown as RRC messages, further see par. 5)
Regarding claim 16. The combination teaches claim 11. OPPO further teaches wherein the controller logs the release (page 15, de-configure SI-request, reads on logging the release as it is de configured).
Regarding claims 17 and 21. The combination teaches claims 1 and 6 above. Wang further teaches wherein: the serving network device is a scheduling network device (figure 1, gNB 103). OPPO further teaches transmittal of the release is a requirement for the UE to enter into a radio resource control connected state; and the sidelink relay device and the serving network device are configured to ignore the release from relaying essential system information (OPPO, page 15, Remote UE de-configure SI-request w.r.t relay UE implicitly when entering into RRC connected state…thus when entering RRC connected (i.e. when transitioning), the remote UE de configures the relay UE from relaying the SI (i.e. a release from relaying SI to the remote UE); page 21, OPPO relay UE can do forwarding with or without request from remote UE, thus it could ignore remote UE and forward with or without a request. Ignoring the release is also read on by on demand SIB requests, as they would cause the device to reply to the request). The motivation to combine can be found in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 18. The combination teaches claim 1 above. Wang further teaches wherein the sidelink relay device is a second UE (figure 1 item 121, par. 20).
Regarding claim 20. The combination teaches claim 6 above. Wang further teaches communicating, via a transceiver of the UE, with the sidelink relay device via a sidelink communication channel. (figure 1 item 171, sidelink communication channel between remote UE 111 and relay UE 121, further see par. 20)
Regarding claims 19 and 22. The combination teaches claims 1 and 6 above. Wang further teaches wherein: the request for at least one SIB is transmitted as a request for system information (figure 6, item, 611 SI request); the system information originates at the serving network device (figure 6 item 631); and the system information is provided in response to the second request for at least one SIB after the UE enters the radio resource control connected state (figure 6 item 671, UE is in RRC Connected state as seen in item 601, therefore the system information is provided in response to the second request AFTER the UE enters RRC connected).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Both references relate to providing/acquiring system information in sidelink relay systems, similar to that of the instant application.
US 20230224802 Cheng et al.
US 20250119976 Wu et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL THIER whose telephone number is (571)272-2832. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM, Fri 7:00 AM-10:00 AM.
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.
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.
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Michael Thier
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights