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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 10/17/2024.
Claims 8, 17, 28 are amended.
Claims 19-27 are cancelled.
Claim 29 is new.
The IDS filed on 4/3/2025, 9/16/2025 and 7/17/2026 are considered.
Claims 1-18 and 28-29 are examined and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim recites in part: “… A non-transitory processor readable storage medium…”. This should be changed to: “A non-transitorycomputer readable storage medium…” Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a user equipment”, “first relay user equipment”, “two second relay user equipments”, a first cell group”, “a first secondary cell group”, “a second cell group”, “a master cell group”, “a secondary cell group”, “third path”, “fourth path” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.
The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim 1 is a process claims that includes at least one contingent limitation. Claim 1 recites the limitation “ in a case that a radio link failure occurs in a first link on a first indirect path of the user equipment, determining that a radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first indirect path”. This is a contingent limitation because it discloses a step that only occurs after a condition, but does not explicitly indicate which might happen when that condition does not occur. The BRI of the claim includes embodiments of which the condition does not occur, as result, the contingent limitation 1 is not included in the BRI of those claims. Dependent claims 2-9 additionally have the contingent limitation through the dependency and have the claim BRI determination.
Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections however those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
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 1-18 and 28-29 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.
Independent claims 1, 10 and 28 recite in part: “… radio link management, performed by a user equipment, comprising: in a case that a radio link failure occurs in a first link on a first indirect path of the user equipment, determining that a radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first indirect path; wherein the first link comprises at least one of following: a Uu link between a first relay user equipment and a network device; a sidelink between a remote user equipment and the first relay user equipment; a sidelink between the remote user equipment and a second relay user equipment; a sidelink between two second relay user equipments; or, a sidelink between the second relay user equipment and the first relay user equipment; wherein the first relay user equipment is a UE-to-network relay user equipment, and the second relay user equipment is a UE-to-UE relay user equipment.”
Here it is not clear whether the user equipment for radio link management is 1)first relay UE 2) second relay UE, or 3) remote UE. Without specifying what “a user equipment” is in the claims or in the Drawings, it is unclear what the role of this user equipment is that is performing the radio link management, making this claim unclear and hence indefinite.
For the sake of comparison with prior art, the limitation “a user equipment” with be interpreted as “remote UE”.
Additionally, claims 1 and 10 recite in part: “ … in a case that a radio link failure occurs in a first link on a first indirect path of the user equipment, determining that a radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first indirect path …”
The claim starts with the contingent limitation “in a case” followed by “ … radio link failure occurs … determining that a radio link failure occurs…” In other words, when the condition is already established that a radio link failure has occurred, then the step of “determining” the same thing is confusing, repetitive, unclear and hence indefinite.
Additionally claims 6 and 15 recite in part: “… in a case that the first cell group to which the first indirect path belongs is a first secondary cell group and no radio link failure occurs in at least one third path in a second cell group, transmitting, to the network device through the third path where no radio link failure occurs, second indication information indicating a first secondary cell group radio link failure, wherein the second cell group comprises: at least one of a master cell group or other secondary cell group except the first secondary cell group, and the third path comprises a direct path or a fourth indirect path; or, in a case that the first cell group to which the indirect path belongs is a master cell group and no radio link failure occurs in at least one fourth path in a secondary cell group, transmitting, to the network device through the fourth path where no radio link failure occurs, third indication information indicating a master cell group radio link failure, wherein the fourth path comprises a direct path or a fifth indirect path.”
The underlined claim limitations are unclear, as to the exact meaning of “one third path … third path” or “one fourth path … fourth path”, making these claims unclear and hence indefinite. For the sake of comparison with prior art, the above limitation will be interpreted as, in case of link abnormality (RLF) a direct path through a cell, using the relay path to send notification of RLF.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 29 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph by virtue of their dependency, and for the same reasons stated above.
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) 1-6, 8-15, 17-18, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro (US 20240373322 A1, provisional application No. 63/301,786 filed on Jan 21,2022, hereinafter “Fujishiro”).
Regarding claim 1, Fujishiro teaches a method for radio link management, performed by a user equipment (see FIG. 14, remote UE), comprising:
in a case that a radio link failure occurs in a first link on a first indirect path of the user equipment, determining that a radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first indirect path (see para 91, the remote UE detects an abnormality on the Uu link side (Uu RLF). The remote UE, when detecting the abnormality of the Uu link, transmits an abnormality notification message to the gNB via the relay UE/i.e., first link or the indirect path. The abnormality notification message may include information indicating that the abnormality has occurred in the Uu);
wherein the first link comprises at least one of following:
a Uu link between a first relay user equipment and a network device (see para 90, a direct link (Uu) is established between the remote UE 100-1 and the gNB 200-1 (step S10). An indirect link is also established (PC5, Uu) between the remote UE 100-1 and the gNB 200-1 via the relay UE 100-2 (step S11). The multi-link split bearer (i.e., “intra-cell U2U multi-link split bearer”) is configured by means of the direct link and the indirect link);
a sidelink between a remote user equipment and the first relay user equipment (see FIG. 6 PC5 sidelink between remote UE and relay UE); or a sidelink between the second relay user equipment and the first relay user equipment;
wherein the first relay user equipment is a UE-to-network relay user equipment, and the second relay user equipment is a UE-to-UE relay user equipment (see FIG. 11).
Fujishiro does not specify “a first link”. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specify a first link, since the first link is a first indirect path, and “indirect path” or relay path is already taught by Fujishiro.
Regarding claims 2, 11, Fujishiro teaches: in a case that the first link comprises at least one of: the Uu link between the first relay user equipment and the network device, the sidelink between the two second relay user equipments, or the sidelink between the second relay user equipment and the first relay user equipment, before the determining that the radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first indirect path, the method further comprises: receiving first indication information transmitted by a relay user equipment, wherein the first indication information is used to indicate that the radio link failure occurs in the first link (see para 83-84, the remote UE 100-1 (or the second remote UE 100-12), when detecting an abnormality of the PC5 link, transmits an abnormality notification message to the gNB 200-1 (or the first remote UE 100-11) via the other link. To be specific, first, a first remote user equipment (e.g., remote UE 100-1 or first remote UE 100-11) detects an abnormality of an indirect link. Second, the first remote user equipment transmits an abnormality notification message including information indicating the abnormality to a predetermined equipment (e.g., gNB 200-1 or second remote UE 100-12) via a predetermined link (e.g., another link different from the indirect link)/i.e., sending notification of abnormality before RLF is declared).
Regarding claims 3, 12, Fujishiro teaches: after the determining that the radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first indirect path, the method further comprises at least one of following: in a case that radio link failures occur in all first paths in a first cell group to which the first indirect path belongs, determining that a radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first cell group, wherein the first paths comprises at least one of a direct path or second indirect paths, and the first indirect path is one of the second indirect paths (see para 94, When the split bearer illustrated in FIG. 14 is the “multi-relay U2N multi-link split bearer” (FIG. 12)/i.e. for cell group in gNB, also see FIG. 10, the remote UE 100-1 transmits the abnormality notification message about an abnormality of the PC5 link with the second relay UE 100-22 (e.g., second relay user equipment) via the first relay UE 100-21 (e.g., first relay user equipment)/i.e., the indirect path. The abnormality notification message may be transmitted as an PC5-RRC message in the PC5 link or as an RRC message in the Uu link) or,
Regarding claims 4, 13, Fujishiro teaches: the indirect path radio link failure indication information carries identification information of the first indirect path (Examiners Note: Using BRI consistent with the specification, this limitation has been interpreted to mean “UEID of the relay UE”. Based on this interpretation, see para 92, the remote UE 100-1 transmits the abnormality notification message to the gNB 200-1 via the direct link. The abnormality notification message may include information indicating the abnormality of the PC5 link. The abnormality notification message may include information indicating that the PC5 RLF has occurred. The abnormality notification message may include identification information (UEID, L2 ID, or L2 Destination ID) of the relay UE 100-2 that is a destination for the abnormality).
Regarding claims 5, 14, Fujishiro teaches: the identification information comprises at least one of following: an identifier of a relay user equipment and an identifier of the user equipment (see para 92, the remote UE 100-1 transmits the abnormality notification message to the gNB 200-1 via the direct link. The abnormality notification message may include information indicating the abnormality of the PC5 link. The abnormality notification message may include information indicating that the PC5 RLF has occurred. The abnormality notification message may include identification information (UEID, L2 ID, or L2 Destination ID) of the relay UE 100-2 that is a destination for the abnormality).
Regarding claims 6, 15, Fujishiro teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein after the determining that the radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first cell group, the method further comprises at least one of following:
or in a case that the first cell group to which the indirect path belongs is a master cell group and no radio link failure occurs in at least one fourth path in a secondary cell group, transmitting, to the network device through the fourth path where no radio link failure occurs, third indication information indicating a master cell group radio link failure, wherein the fourth path comprises a direct path or a fifth indirect path (see para 70, The split bearer includes a split bearer by Dual Connectivity (DC) and a split bearer by Multicast and Broadcast Service (MBS). When the split bearer by the DC is configured, the PDCP entity is associated with the RLC entity of the Master Cell Group (MCG) and the RLC entity of the Secondary Cell Group (SCG). When the split bearer by the MBS is configured, the PDCP entity is associated with the RLC entity for Point-to-Multipoint (PTM) and the RLC entity for PTP (point-to-point); FIG. 13 illustrates a configuration example of the mobile communication system 1 when the “multi-link split bearer” is applied to a UE to UE (U2U) sidelink relay. Such a “multi-link split bearer” is referred to as a “U2U multi-link split bearer”; paras 83-84, the remote UE 100-1 (or the second remote UE 100-12), when detecting an abnormality of the PC5 link, transmits an abnormality notification message to the gNB 200-1 (or the first remote UE 100-11) via the other link)… a remote user equipment (e.g., remote UE 100-1 or first remote UE 100-11) detects an abnormality of an indirect link. The first remote user equipment transmits an abnormality notification message including information indicating the abnormality to a predetermined equipment (e.g., gNB 200-1 or second remote UE 100-12) via a predetermined link (e.g., another link different from the indirect link).
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 29, Fujishiro teaches: receiving fourth indication information transmitted by the network device, wherein the fourth indication information is used to trigger the user equipment to perform discovery and/or reselection of a target object; wherein the target object comprises: a relay user equipment and/or a cell (see para 119-120, the remote UE 100-1 transmits a relay reselection notification message to the gNB 200-1 via the relay the direct link. The message includes the identification information (UEID, L2 ID, or L2 Destination ID) of the relay UE reselected by the remote UE 100-1 in the relay reselection. The message may include information indicating that the relay reselection is successful. The message may be transmitted as an RRC message. For the “U2U multi-link split bearer” (FIG. 13), the first remote UE 100-11 performs the relay reselection (step S32) and transmits the relay reselection notification message to the second remote UE 100-12 via the direct link (step S33).
Regarding claims 9, 18, Fujishiro teaches: after the determining that the radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first indirect path, the method further comprises: performing discovery and/or reselection of a target object; wherein the target object comprises: a relay user equipment and/or a cell (see para 135, if RLC occurs in multi-relay U2N multi-link split bearer in the indirect link, the relay alternatively performs relay reselection when detecting a PC5 RLF in every indirect link).
Regarding claim 10, Fujishiro teaches a user equipment (see FIG. 14, remote UE), comprising a memory, a transceiver, and a processor; wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, the transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data under control of the processor, and the processor is configured to read the computer program in the memory to perform following operation:
in a case that a radio link failure occurs in a first link on a first indirect path of the user equipment, determining that a radio link failure occurs to the user equipment in the first indirect path (Examiners Note: this is a contingent limitation, however, see para 91, the remote UE detects an abnormality on the Uu link side (Uu RLF). The remote UE, when detecting the abnormality of the Uu link, transmits an abnormality notification message to the gNB via the relay UE/i.e., first link or the indirect path. The abnormality notification message may include information indicating that the abnormality has occurred in the Uu);
a Uu link between a first relay user equipment and a network device (see para 90, a direct link (Uu) is established between the remote UE 100-1 and the gNB 200-1 (step S10). An indirect link is also established (PC5, Uu) between the remote UE 100-1 and the gNB 200-1 via the relay UE 100-2 (step S11). The multi-link split bearer (i.e., “intra-cell U2U multi-link split bearer”) is configured by means of the direct link and the indirect link);
a sidelink between a remote user equipment and the first relay user equipment (see FIG. 6 PC5 sidelink between remote UE and relay UE); or a sidelink between the second relay user equipment and the first relay user equipment;
wherein the first relay user equipment is a UE-to-network relay user equipment, and the second relay user equipment is a UE-to-UE relay user equipment (see FIG. 11).
Fujishiro does not specify “a first link”. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specify a first link, since the first link is a first indirect path, and “indirect path” or relay path is already taught by Fujishiro.
Regarding Claim 28, Fujishiro teaches a non-transitory processor readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon (see para 139), wherein the computer program is configured to cause a processor to perform the method according to claim 1.
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) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro in view of Yu (WO 2014117854 A1, from IDS, hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claims 7, 16, Fujishiro teaches: the second indication information carries identification information of the first secondary cell group (Note: The limitation “second indication information is a contingent limitation, since the second option is mapped for claim 6 that it depends on, however Yu teaches this limitation).
Fujishiro teaches RLF in multi-relay U2N multi-link split bearer, and relay reselection for failed indirect paths, but does not teach the Cell ID of the reselected path cell.
Yu teaches RLF and reporting the same to the D2D device (relay or direct UE), it further teaches: see page 9, lines 7-15, Table 1, UE2 may assist UE1 for indicating the selected cell to eNB so that the network side is able to prepare the selected cell for UEVs access. As indicated on the fourth row of Table 1 when UE1 selects a cell of a different eNB that is not prepared after RLF is detected, UE1 indicates to the network via UE2 the cell IDs of the selected cell and the serving cell before RLF happens. Then the previous serving cell may transfer the UE context of UE1 to the selected cell via a network interface (e.g. X2/S1 interface in LTE). Thus, the selected cell becomes the prepared one, and UE1 is able to recover from RLF and resume activity by requesting RRC connection re-establishment to the selected cell without going via the RRCJDLE mode.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the relay reselection for failed indirect paths of Fujishiro, to include a cell ID of the reselected cell, after RLF, for quickly resuming activity of the selected cell (see Yu, page 9), saving idle mode time after RLF.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu (US 20250071660 A1) teaches that a UE is configured: to access a serving cell of a network node via a path, wherein the path is a direct path or an indirect path between the UE and the network node; to receive configuration information regarding a path addition procedure via the transceiver from the network node, wherein the path addition procedure is for adding a further path between the UE and the network node; to initiate the path addition procedure; and to start a timer related to the path addition procedure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPA BELUR whose telephone number is (571)270-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at 571-272-3980. 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.
/DEEPA BELUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights