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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without the written authorization in place, USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP 502.03.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12, 14 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0377842, “Xu”) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 2026/0205916, “Mochizuki”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Xu unless otherwise mentioned.
Xu comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (See Fig. 10A) and configured to cause the UE to:
communicate with a base station via a relay node ([0053 and Fig. 2] “The other link is an indirect relay link that includes a direct link segment between the network equipment 202 and the relay UE 222 and a sidelink segment between the relay UE 222 and the remote UE 224. In this scenario, with both links connecting to a gNB as an example of the network equipment 202, switching between these two links may be referred to as intra-gNB link switching.”); and
receive, via the relay node from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message ([0069 and Fig. 6] “After this is accomplished, the gNB 610 could send RRC configuration/reconfiguration signaling or other signaling at 626 via the relay UE 612 to the remote UE 614,”) for path switch ([0083] “a gNB or other network device could send RRC or MAC-CE signaling to one or more relay UEs, a remote UE, or both, to indicate link or path switching”),
wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch indicates that the UE and the relay node are switched together ([0099] “A gNB, such as the gNB that makes the switching determination at 806, sends a path switching message to a relay UE and/or the remote UE (possibly via a relay UE) at 808.”).
It is noted that while disclosing path switching, Xu does not specifically teach about switching together. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Mochizuki as follows;
are switched together ([Mochizuki, 0362] “the remote UE sets the RRC configuration using the RRC configuration of gNB #1 provided by gNB #2 through the HO instruction, and establishes the RRC connection with gNB #1 via the relay UE. The relay UE may be a relay UE included in the HO instruction received from gNB #2. In FIG. 17, the remote UE that has received the HO instruction from gNB #2 detaches gNB #2 in step ST1706, and notifies gNB #1, which is the HO destination gNB, of the completion of the RRC reconfiguration via the relay UE in step ST1707.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Xu by using the features of Mochizuki in order to improve communication quality such that “a system that supports such relay-involved communication how to improve the communication quality between terminals and the NW.” [Mochizuki, 0093].
Regarding claim 14, it is a relay node claim corresponding to the method claim 1 in a reciprocal way, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, it is a processor claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, the UE of claim 1, wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch indicates the relay node as a target relay node for the path switch ([Mochizuki, 0347] “Information indicating that HO is based on the connection via the relay UE.”, and [Mochizuki, 0362] “the remote UE sets the RRC configuration using the RRC configuration of gNB #1 provided by gNB #2 through the HO instruction, and establishes the RRC connection with gNB #1 via the relay UE.”).
Regarding claim 4, the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform at least one of the following in response to receiving the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch: store the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch (This alternative is not examined.); or start a timer for group-based path switch ([0080] “a timer could be used to set up a transition period after signaling triggers link or path switching. The timer could be configured or specified.”).
Regarding claim 5, the UE of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform at least one of the following:
stop transmitting user plane (UP) data when the timer for group-based path switch is running ([0087] “The transition period could be determined by a timer starting after the switching signal. In another embodiment, switching is enabled or triggered by signaling, and further signaling is transmitted to deactivate or release an old link or path and end the transition period.”);
receive a first indication from the relay node and stopping the timer for group-based path switch in response to receiving the first indication, wherein the first indication indicates a successful handover of the relay node, an unsuccessful handover of the relay node, or reestablishment of the relay node; or perform reestablishment in response to an expiry of the timer for group-based path switch (These alternatives are not examined.).
Regarding claim 6, the UE of claim 1, wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch indicates a value of a timer for group-based path switch ([0087] “indicate the length of a transition period in switching signaling.”).
Regarding claim 7, the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to:
receive a first indication from the relay node, wherein the first indication indicates a successful handover of the relay node ([Mochizuki, 0289] “In step ST1409, the remote UE performs the discovery process. The remote UE performs the PC5-S link establishment process on the detected relay UE having the relay function in step ST1410”), an unsuccessful handover of the relay node, or reestablishment of the relay node (These alternatives are not examined.); and
apply the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch in response to receiving the first indication ([Mochizuki, 0289] “performs the PC5-RRC connection in step ST1411.”).
Regarding claim 8, the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive, from the relay node, a second indication which indicates that the path switch is upcoming ([0139] “a relay UE that receives signaling with an explicit indication from a network device may provide, to the second UE and responsive to the explicit indication, an implicit indication or an explicit indication that the second UE is to switch between the first communication link and the second communication link for communications with the wireless communication network.”).
Regarding claim 9, the UE of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to start a timer for the upcoming path switch in response to receiving the second indication ([0078] “Explicit signaling or an explicit indication of switching may be preferred in some embodiments, for example to enable a remote UE or relay UE to more quickly stop monitoring a source link from which communications are to be switched, thereby saving power.”, and [0080] “a timer could be used to set up a transition period after signaling triggers link or path switching. The timer could be configured or specified.”).
Regarding claim 10, the UE of claim 9, wherein the second indication indicates a value of the timer for the upcoming path switch ([0087] “The transition period could be determined by a timer starting after the switching signal. In another embodiment, switching is enabled or triggered by signaling, and further signaling is transmitted to deactivate or release an old link or path and end the transition period. Another possible option is to specify or otherwise indicate the length of a transition period in switching signaling.”).
Regarding claim 12, the UE of claim 8,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to apply the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch in response to receiving the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch ([Mochizuki, 0361] “The RRC reconfiguration notification may be used for the notification of the HO instruction. RRC signaling may be used. RRCreconfiguration message may be used. The HO instruction may include the RRC configuration information set for the remote UE by gNB #1 disclosed above.”); or
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a third indication which indicates a successful handover of the relay node, and apply the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch in response to receiving the third indication (This alternative is not examined.).
Claim(s) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0377842, “Xu”) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 2026/0205916, “Mochizuki”) and further in view of Paladugu et al. (US 2023/0180076, “Paladugu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Xu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that while disclosing path switching, Xu does not specifically teach about L2 ID. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Paladugu as follows;
the UE of claim 1, wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch indicates an ID of a target relay node for the path switch, which is a source layer-2 ID of the relay node ([Paladugu, 0086] “the assistance information may include at least one of: a cell ID of the serving cell of the relay UE, a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) of the relay UE.”, and [Paladugu, 0091] “As shown in FIG. 15, the measurement report may include one or more of the following for each relay UE discovered: the relay UE’s ID (C-RNTI or L2 ID)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Xu by using the features of Paladugu in order to provide an efficient way of link switching such that “The method generally includes receiving signaling for a configuration of selection criteria for mobility procedures for a switch between a first path whereby the remote UE is connected directly to a network entity and a second path whereby the remote UE is connected to the network entity via a relay UE” [Paladugu, 0007].
Claim(s) 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0377842, “Xu”) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 2026/0205916, “Mochizuki”) and further in view of Hwang (US 2022/0038976).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Xu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that while disclosing path switching, Xu does not specifically teach about reestablishment at a timer expiring. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Hwang as follows;
the UE of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform at least one of the following:
receive a third indication from the relay node and stopping the timer for the upcoming path switch in response to receiving the third indication, wherein the third indication indicates a successful handover of the relay node; stop the timer for the upcoming path switch in response to receiving the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch (These alternatives are not examined.); or
perform reestablishment in response to an expiry of the timer for the upcoming path switch ([Hwang, 0022] “performing a radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment or performing a fallback to the serving cell if the timer expires.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Xu by using the features of Hwang in order to provide improve mobility in an unlicensed band such that “the base station provides a timer value to a user equipment (UE), and a timer starts if a condition is satisfied.” [Hwang, 0017].
Claim(s) 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0377842, “Xu”) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 2026/0205916, “Mochizuki”) and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 2021/0298120, “Sharma”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Xu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that while disclosing path switching, Xu does not specifically teach about reestablishment at an RLC entity with a bearer. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Sharma as follows;
the UE of claim 1, wherein in response to receiving the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform at least one of:
reestablish a radio link control (RLC) entity of the UE when a bearer between the UE and the relay node is configured to reestablish the RLC entity ([Sharma, 0022] “reestablishing of a RLC entity and reestablishing of a PDCP entity corresponding to the radio bearer based on the one or more Layer 2 indications and the Layer 2 configuration received in the RRC reconfiguration message.”); or
reestablish a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the UE when the bearer between the UE and the relay node is configured to reestablish the PDCP entity (This alternative is not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Xu by using the features of Sharma in order to provide improve mobility in an unlicensed band such that “to reestablish of a RLC entity and a data recovery procedure for a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity corresponding to the radio bearer based on the one or more Layer 2 indications and the Layer 2 configuration received in the RRC reconfiguration message.” [Sharma, 0009].
Claim(s) 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (US 2026/0205916, “Mochizuki”) in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0377842, “Xu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Mochizuki unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 15, a base station, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (See Fig. 9 for 403 “PROTOCOL PROCESSING UNIT” [0149] “the control unit 411 is implemented by processing circuitry including a processor and a memory”) and configured to cause the base station to:
receive a handover request message from a first base station ([0346] “In step ST1702, gNB #2 notifies gNB #1 of a HO request.”),
wherein the handover request message indicates a user equipment (UE) and a relay node are switched together ([0347 and Fig. 17] “information included in the HO request are disclosed below.”, [0348] “(1) Identifier of the UE that performs HO. [0349] (2) Information indicating that HO is based on the connection via the relay UE. [0350] (3) Identifier of the relay UE.”, [0356] “gNB #1 may determine whether to accept the HO of the remote UE subjected to HO using the information related to the connection state in the PC5 between the remote UE and the relay UE and/or the information related to the connection state of the relay UE received from gNB #2. gNB #1 may determine the connection state with the relay UE by itself. Preferably, gNB #1 determines the connection state with the relay UE using the identifier of the relay UE included in the HO request provided by gNB #2.”, and [0357] “when the PC5-RRC connection between the relay UE and the remote UE is completed and the relay UE is in the RRC connection state with gNB #1, gNB #1 may determine to accept the HO of the remote UE.” Note that the above citations support treating the requested HO as a coordinated relay-associated switch of the remote UE and its specified relay UE. That is, Mochizuki’s HO request indicates coordinated switching of the remote UE in association with the identified relay UE, because the request expressly indicates HO via the relay UE and identifies that relay UE, while the target gNB’s acceptance decision expressly evaluates the PC5 connection between the remote UE and relay UE and the relay UE’s target-gNB connection state.) and
wherein the UE communicates with the first base station via the relay node (This will be discussed in view of Xu.); and
transmit a handover request acknowledgement message to the first base station in response to the handover request message ([0360 and Fig. 17] “In response to gNB #1 determining to accept the HO of the remote UE, gNB #1 notifies gNB #2 of a HO request response in step ST1704”).
It is noted that while disclosing a HO procedure, Mochizuki does not specifically teach about UE’s communication with the source base station via the relay node. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by REF2 as follows;
the UE communicates with the first base station via the relay node ([Xu, 0120 and Fig. 9D] “In FIG. 9D, an example timeline and signal/data flow for inter-gNB link switching from a source relay link to a target relay link is shown. This example is similar to the example shown in FIG. 9A, but involves two network devices. The network devices are shown as a target gNB 861 and a source gNB 863. UE behaviors of the relay UEs 862, 864 and the remote UE 866 are as described with reference to FIG. 9A, and network device behavior is also similar to that described with reference to FIG. 9A, with the exception that network device operations are split between the target gNB 861 and the source gNB 863 in FIG. 9D.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Mochizuki by using the features of Xu in order to improve communication system performance such that “Supporting multiple-path establishment and inter-path switching, with at least one relay path, may be viable for such purposes as improving system performance in latency or throughput for emerging and important applications.” [Xu, 0008].
Regarding claim 16, the base station of claim 15,
wherein the handover request acknowledgement message comprises a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message for path switch associated with the UE ([Xu, 0069 and Fig. 6] “After this is accomplished, the gNB 610 could send RRC configuration/reconfiguration signaling or other signaling at 626 via the relay UE 612 to the remote UE 614,”), and an RRC reconfiguration message for handover associated with the relay node ([Xu, 0099] “A gNB, such as the gNB that makes the switching determination at 806, sends a path switching message to a relay UE and/or the remote UE (possibly via a relay UE) at 808.”); and
wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch associated with the UE and the RRC reconfiguration message for handover associated with the relay node indicate that the UE and the relay node are switched together ([0362] “the remote UE sets the RRC configuration using the RRC configuration of gNB #1 provided by gNB #2 through the HO instruction, and establishes the RRC connection with gNB #1 via the relay UE. The relay UE may be a relay UE included in the HO instruction received from gNB #2. In FIG. 17, the remote UE that has received the HO instruction from gNB #2 detaches gNB #2 in step ST1706, and notifies gNB #1, which is the HO destination gNB, of the completion of the RRC reconfiguration via the relay UE in step ST1707.”).
Regarding claim 17, the base station of claim 15,
wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch associated with the UE indicates the relay node as a target relay node for the path switch ([0347] “Information indicating that HO is based on the connection via the relay UE.”, and [0362] “the remote UE sets the RRC configuration using the RRC configuration of gNB #1 provided by gNB #2 through the HO instruction, and establishes the RRC connection with gNB #1 via the relay UE.”); and
wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for handover associated with the relay node indicates at least one remote UE including the UE (See Fig. 17.).
Claim(s) 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (US 2026/0205916, “Mochizuki”) in view of Paladugu et al. (US 2023/0180076, “Paladugu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Mochizuki unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that while disclosing path switching, Mochizuki does not specifically teach about L2 ID. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Paladugu as follows;
the base station of claim 15, wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch associated with the UE indicates an ID of a target relay node for the path switch, which is a source layer-2 ID of the relay node; and wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for handover associated with the relay node indicates an ID of a remote UE, which is a source layer-2 ID of the UE ([Paladugu, 0086] “the assistance information may include at least one of: a cell ID of the serving cell of the relay UE, a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) of the relay UE.”, and [Paladugu, 0091] “As shown in FIG. 15, the measurement report may include one or more of the following for each relay UE discovered: the relay UE’s ID (C-RNTI or L2 ID)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Mochizuki by using the features of Paladugu in order to provide an efficient way of link switching such that “The method generally includes receiving signaling for a configuration of selection criteria for mobility procedures for a switch between a first path whereby the remote UE is connected directly to a network entity and a second path whereby the remote UE is connected to the network entity via a relay UE” [Paladugu, 0007].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claim contains the following underlined features which, when combined with other features of the claim, prior art of record failed to anticipate or render obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application was filed:
19. The base station of claim 15, wherein the RRC reconfiguration message for path switch associated with the UE and the RRC reconfiguration message for handover associated with the relay node are independently included in the same handover request acknowledgement message or included in separate handover request acknowledgement messages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights