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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior International Application PCT/CN2022/087654, filed April 19, 2022, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation. The benefit of the filing date of the prior application is acknowledged, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 15, 2024; May 8, 2025; and October 29, 2025 were filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. Since the submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4-9, 12, 14-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 4-8, 12, 14-15, and 20 all incorrectly recite “wherein,” before additional claim recitation. However, a comma should be place before the term “wherein” when it introduced a clause the provides additional information for the claim.
Claims 5, 9, 16-17, and 20 utilize commas rather than semicolons to separate limitations. Applicant should ensure that all the claims are properly punctuated.
The following description may be helpful to Applicant:
Because the claim is a single sentence, special punctuation conventions have been developed and are being increasingly used by patent attorneys. Modern claims follow a set format whereby the preamble is separated from the transitional term by a comma while the transitional term is separated from the body by a colon. Each of the elements of the invention in the body of the claim are in separate paragraphs, which are set apart from other paragraphs by a semi-colon. (www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9511.html#:~:text=Because%20the%20claim%20is%20a%20single%20sentence%2C%20special,is%20separated%20from%20the%20body%20by%20a%20colon, emphasis added.
Claims 9 and 15-16 incorrectly recite the term “equipments.” However, the term "equipments" is grammatically incorrect and should be avoided, since the term “equipment” is considered a mass noun that refers to a collection of items.
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 1-4, 6, 9-14, and 17-18 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.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, and 17-18,
The claims all use the term “and/or” in various recitations, and this term is indefinite. The use of the word “and” can be understood to mean that the listed elements must be cumulatively present, but the word “or” indicates that the listed elements are to be understood as an alternative. For example, Claims 1 and 11 both recite “the path being a direct path and/or an indirect path between the remote terminal equipment and the network device.” This makes little sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art, because if the term “and” is logically applied it is not clear how a path can be both direct and indirect at the same time. Therefore, it would be more understandable to simply recite “the path being a direct path or an indirect path.” In general, use of “and/or” in claim recitation may result in a determination of claim indefiniteness.
“wherein, the first radio resource control reconfiguration information includes the configuration information, or includes the configuration information and at least one of the following: a local identifier and the layer 2 identifier of the remote terminal equipment, relay radio link control configuration of Uu and PC5 interfaces for relay, or bearer mapping configuration; and/or
the second radio resource control reconfiguration information includes the configuration information, or includes the configuration information and at least one of the following: a relay terminal equipment identifier, radio link control channel configuration of a PC5 interface of a relay service, or a related peer-to-peer radio bearer.”
Regarding Claims 3 and 13,
The claims recite both “information on a state/states of the direct path and/or the indirect path” and “an identifier/identifiers or an index/indices of a primary radio link control entity and/ or primary logical channel.” As was discussed above, the “and/or” is indefinite, and so are the other similarly recited terms highlighted above. If a singular term is intended, which is implied by the use of the article “an,” then it should be recited as “an identifier” or “an index,” rather than “an identifier/identifiers” or “an index/indices.” This method of claim recitation utilizing slashes to designate both singular and plural occurrences could lead to an indefiniteness rejection and should not be utilized.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14,
The claims recite as follows: “wherein the information indicating that split transmission or duplication transmission is used between the direct path and the indirect path is for radio bearer.” These claims are indefinite because of the awkward recitation, in which there are two verbs presumably associated with “the information.” Those two verbs are “is used” and “is for,” and it is not clear what is meant by “is for radio bearer.”
Regarding Claim 6,
The claim recites as follows:
“wherein, the first radio resource control reconfiguration information includes the configuration information, or includes the configuration information and at least one of the following: a local identifier and the layer 2 identifier of the remote terminal equipment, relay radio link control configuration of Uu and PC5 interfaces for relay, or bearer mapping configuration; and/or
the second radio resource control reconfiguration information includes the configuration information, or includes the configuration information and at least one of the following: a relay terminal equipment identifier, radio link control channel configuration of a PC5 interface of a relay service, or a related peer-to-peer radio bearer.”
The use of multiple occurrences of “or” and “and/or” make this claim confusing to a person of ordinary skill in the art. More specificity is needed as to the meaning.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 12-20,
Because the claims depend from rejected base Claims 1 and 11, they are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong (WO 2024071786 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hong).
Regarding Claim 1,
Hong teaches:
“A multi-path configuration apparatus comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit configuration information to a remote terminal equipment, the configuration information including information for adding a path such that the remote terminal equipment and a network device are connected via more than one path” (page 2, paragraph 1; page 3, paragraph 4; page 3, paragraph 5; page 8, paragraph 2; fig. 1). [The invention relates to a technology in which a remote terminal connected to a base station through a relay terminal transmits and receives data through a direct path and an indirect path (page 2, paragraph 1). A remote terminal device includes a control unit configuring multiple paths and a transmitter that transmits an RRC message when a wireless link failure is detected in at least one of the multiple paths can be provided (page 3, paragraph 4). The transmitter transmits configuration information for configuring multiple paths, including indirect paths, to the remote terminal, and a receiver that receives a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message when a wireless link failure is detected in at least one of the multiple paths in the remote terminal (page 3, paragraph 5). Referring to Figure 1, the New Radio (NR) system is divided into 5G Core Network (5GC) and NR-Radio Access Network (RAN) parts; NG-RAN controls the user plane (SDAP/PDCP/RLC/MAC/PHY) and UE (User Equipment), and it consists of gNode-B (gNB) and ng-evolved Node-B (eNB) providing flat (RRC) protocol termination; gNB interconnection or gNB and ng-eNB are interconnected through Xn interface; gNB and ng-eNB are each connected to 5GC through the NG interface; 5GC may be composed of an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), which is responsible for the control plane such as terminal access and mobility control functions, and a User Plane Function (UPF), which is responsible for controlling user data (page 8, paragraph 2).] (NOTE: The transmitter that transmits configuration information is equivalent to the “transmitter configured to transmit configuration information,” the remote terminal device that receives data through a direct path and an indirect path to the “remote terminal equipment connected via more than one path,” the configuration information for configuring multiple paths to the “configuration information including information for adding a path,” and the NR-Radio Access Network (RAN) parts to the “network device.”)
“the path being a direct path and/or an indirect path between the remote terminal equipment and the network device” (page 3, paragraph 6). [A remote terminal connected to a base station through a relay terminal transmits and receives data through a direct path and an indirect path (page 3, paragraph 6).] (NOTE: The base station is equivalent to the “network device” and the remote terminal to the “remote terminal equipment.”)
Regarding Claim 11,
Hong teaches:
“A multi-path configuration apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive configuration information transmitted by a network device, ” (page 2, paragraph 1; page 3, paragraph 4; page 3, paragraph 5; page 8, paragraph 2). [The invention relates to a technology in which a remote terminal connected to a base station through a relay terminal transmits and receives data through a direct path and an indirect path (page 2, paragraph 1). The base station controls communication through multiple paths of the remote terminal, configures the direct path, and includes a transmitter that transmits configuration information for configuring multiple paths, including indirect paths, to the remote terminal (page 3, paragraph 5). A remote terminal connected to a base station through a relay terminal transmits and receives data through a direct path and an indirect path (page 3, paragraph 6). Downlink refers to a method of transmitting and receiving data from a base station to a terminal, and also refers to a communication path from multiple transmission and reception points to a terminal; in the downlink, the receiver is part of the terminal (page 7, paragraph 1).] (NOTE: Since the base station and remote terminal transmit and receive data through a direct path and an indirect path, they are equivalent to a “multi-path configuration apparatus.” The base station is equivalent to the “network device,” the remote terminal to the “remote terminal equipment,” the receiver receiving configuration information is equivalent to the “a receiver configured to receive configuration information transmitted by a network device,” and the actual data received to “the configuration information including information for adding a path, the path being a direct path and/or an indirect path between a remote terminal equipment and a network device.”)
“processor circuitry configured to control to add the path according to the configuration information to connect to the network device via more than one path” (page 35, paragraph 2). [In the case of hardware implementation, the method according to the present embodiments uses one or more processors, controllers, microcontrollers, or microprocessors (page 35, paragraph 2).]
Regarding Claims 2 and 12,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 11.
Hong teaches:
“wherein, the configuration information further comprises information for modifying and/or deleting a path between the remote terminal equipment and the network device” (page 23, paragraph 2). [When a remote terminal sets/configures/modifies a direct path and an indirect path in the terminal by adding/editing a route in the terminal through multiple paths including direct paths and indirect paths) /modify), one of multiple paths can be indicated/configured/set/considered as the primary path (page 23, paragraph 2).]
Regarding Claims 3 and 13,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 11.
Hong teaches:
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the configuration information comprises at least one of the following:
an identifier of the path;
information indicating that split transmission or duplication transmission is used between the direct path and the indirect path;
information on a state/states of the direct path and/or the indirect path;
a correspondence relationship between a radio link control entity or a logical channel and a path;
information on a primary path; or an identifier/identifiers or
an index/indices of a primary radio link control entity and/ or primary logical channel”
(page 21, paragraph 6). [The remote terminal in the RRC idle/inactive state uses an indirect path through the relay terminal in the Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB)/Data Radio Bearer (DRB) configuration to transmit and receive RRC messages (page 21, paragraph 6).] (NOTE: The limitation being examined is the one that recites “information on a state/states of the direct path and/or the indirect path,” because the claim ends with the term “or.”)
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (WO 2024071786 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hong) in view of Farineau (FR 2913294 A1, hereinafter referred to as Farineau).
Regarding Claim 7,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Hong does not teach:
“wherein, the transmitter transmits third radio resource control reconfiguration information for adding a direct path to the remote terminal equipment.”
Farineau teaches:
“wherein, the transmitter transmits third radio resource control reconfiguration information for adding a direct path to the remote terminal equipment” (page 1, last paragraph; page 10). [The invention relates to the field of radio communication networks, and more particularly to the routing of traffic between communication terminals attached to remote transmission sites (or stations) belonging to the radio communication network (page 1, last paragraph). A direct path can be established between each remote site (page 10).]
Both Hong and Farineau teach systems in the field of radio communication networks, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Hong disclosure, the ability to add direct paths to remote terminals, as taught by Farineau. Such inclusion would have provided a way to add direct paths to terminals, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (WO 2024071786 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hong) in view of Lim et al. (US 2013/0215789 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lim).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 15.
Hong teaches:
“via a direct path” and “via an indirect path” (page 2, first paragraph). [This disclosure relates to a technology in which a remote terminal connected to a base station through a relay terminal transmits and receives data through a direct path and an indirect path (page 2, first paragraph).]
“a Uu interface to the remote terminal” (page 14, paragraph 8). The relay terminal can be connected to the base station through the Uu interface (page 14, paragraph 8).
Hong does not teach:
“wherein, the transmitter transmits measurement configuration for measuring one or more than one candidate relay terminal equipments to the remote terminal equipment …, or transmits measurement configuration for measuring … to the remote terminal equipment …” as recited in Claim 8, and “a transmitter configured to transmit a first measurement report for measuring one or more candidate relay terminal equipments or a second measurement report for measuring … to the network device” as recited in Claim 15.
Lim teaches:
“wherein, the transmitter transmits measurement configuration for measuring one or more than one candidate relay terminal equipments to the remote terminal equipment …, or transmits measurement configuration for measuring … to the remote terminal equipment …” as recited in Claim 8, and “a transmitter configured to transmit a first measurement report for measuring one or more candidate relay terminal equipments or a second measurement report for measuring … to the network device” as recited in Claim 15 (paragraphs [0088], [0105]). [Each stream transfer terminal monitors the quality of network links connecting to the stream transfer terminal, includes the monitoring result into the network link quality information, and periodically reports the information to cluster monitoring terminal ([0088]). Stream transfer terminal receiving the cluster change request measures the delay time among all other terminals in the same cluster, and returns a cluster change response including network delay information that is the measurement result ([0105]).]
Both Hong and Lim teach systems in the field of multipoint communication networks, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Hong disclosure, the ability to receive reporting of the measurements regarding networking terminals, as taught by Lim. Such inclusion would have provided a way to add direct paths to terminals, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 15.
Hong does not teach:
“a receiver configured to receive, via the direct path, a first measurement report transmitted by the remote terminal equipment for measuring one or more than one candidate relay terminal equipments, and/or receives, via an indirect path, a second measurement report transmitted by the remote terminal equipment for measuring a Uu interface” as recited in Claim 9 and “wherein, the receiver further configured to receive, via a direct path, measurement configuration for measuring one or more than one candidate relay terminal equipments transmitted by the network device, or to receive, via an indirect path, measurement configuration for measuring a Uu interface” as recited in Claim 16.
Lim teaches:
“a receiver configured to receive, via the direct path, a first measurement report transmitted by the remote terminal equipment for measuring one or more than one candidate relay terminal equipments, and/or receives, via an indirect path, a second measurement report transmitted by the remote terminal equipment for measuring a Uu interface” as recited in Claim 9 and “wherein, the receiver further configured to receive, via a direct path, measurement configuration for measuring one or more than one candidate relay terminal equipments transmitted by the network device, or to receive, via an indirect path, measurement configuration for measuring a Uu interface” as recited in Claim 16 (paragraphs [0003], [0088]). [Upon receiving a participation request from a communication terminal (hereinafter referred to as "participant terminal") wishing to newly participate in a session, the apparatus selects a parent terminal candidate for this participant terminal, measures bandwidth and delay among a participant terminal and parent terminal candidates, determines an appropriate parent terminal based on the measurement result ([0003]). Each stream transfer terminal monitors the quality of network links connecting to the stream transfer terminal, includes the monitoring result into the network link quality information, and periodically reports the information to cluster monitoring terminal ([0088]).] (NOTE: The report of network link quality information is equivalent to the “measurement report.”)
Both Hong and Lim teach systems in the field of multipoint communication networks, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Hong disclosure, the ability to receive reporting of the performance of networking terminals, as taught by Lim. Such inclusion would have provided a way to add direct paths to terminals, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 5-6, 10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (WO 2024071786 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hong) in view of Yao et al. (US 2025/0227802 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yao).
Regarding Claim 5,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Hong does not teach:
“wherein, the transmitter is further configured to: transmit first radio resource control reconfiguration information for configuring the indirect path to a target relay terminal equipment in a radio resource control connected state, and transmit second radio resource control reconfiguration information for configuring the indirect path to the remote terminal equipment.”
Yao teaches:
“wherein, the transmitter is further configured to: transmit first radio resource control reconfiguration information for configuring the indirect path to a target relay terminal equipment in a radio resource control connected state, and transmit second radio resource control reconfiguration information for configuring the indirect path to the remote terminal equipment” (paragraph [0008]). [In a process of establishing the indirect path, the remote terminal device sends an RRC reconfiguration complete message to an access network device through an existing path, and the remote terminal device can also send the first information to the relay terminal device ([0008]).] (NOTE: Since more than one message can be sent, both the “first” and the “second” RRC messages are encompassed by the Yao reference.)
Both Hong and Yao teach systems in the field of radio communication networks, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Hong disclosure, the ability to send radio resource control reconfiguration complete messages, as taught by Yao. Such inclusion would have provided a way to add direct paths to terminals, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6,
Hong in view of Yao teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 5.
Hong does not teach:
“wherein, the first radio resource control reconfiguration information includes the configuration information, or includes the configuration information and at least one of the following: a local identifier and the layer 2 identifier of the remote terminal equipment, relay radio link control configuration of Uu and PC5 interfaces for relay, or bearer mapping configuration; and/or
the second radio resource control reconfiguration information includes the configuration information, or includes the configuration information and at least one of the following: a relay terminal equipment identifier, radio link control channel configuration of a PC5 interface of a relay service, or a related peer-to-peer radio bearer.”
Yao teaches:
“wherein, the first radio resource control reconfiguration information includes the configuration information, or includes the configuration information and at least one of the following: a local identifier and the layer 2 identifier of the remote terminal equipment, relay radio link control configuration of Uu and PC5 interfaces for relay, or bearer mapping configuration; and/or
the second radio resource control reconfiguration information includes the configuration information, or includes the configuration information and at least one of the following: a relay terminal equipment identifier, radio link control channel configuration of a PC5 interface of a relay service, or a related peer-to-peer radio bearer” (paragraphs [0007], [0096], [0111]). [The method includes: receiving an Radio Resource Control (RRC) reconfiguration message from a first network device, where the RRC reconfiguration message is used to configure an indirect path in a multipath ([0007]). If the DCR includes the layer 2 identity corresponding to the single path, it indicates that the DCR requests to establish the PC5 connection through the single path ([0096]). If the PCS RRC message is a PC5 RRC reconfiguration message, the foregoing described RRC reconfiguration message sent by the access network device is understood as a Uu RRC reconfiguration message ([0111]). The remote UE can configure the relay UE by using the PC5 RRC message; because the receiving configuration is a configuration of the PC5 relay RLC channel, and is different from vehicle-to-everything (V2X) sidelink communication, the relay UE may determine that the receiving configuration is used to provide a data relay service for the remote UE ([0109]).] (NOTE: The use of multiple occurrences of “or” and “and/or” make this claim confusing to a person of ordinary skill in the art. It is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).)
Both Hong and Yao teach systems in the field of radio communication networks, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Hong disclosure, the ability to provide a variety of radio resource control reconfiguration information, as taught by Yao. Such inclusion would have provided a way to add direct paths to terminals, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Hong does not teach:
“a receiver configured to receive, via the direct path and/or the indirect path, radio resource control reconfiguration complete message transmitted by the remote terminal equipment”
Yao teaches:
“a receiver configured to receive, via the direct path and/or the indirect path, radio resource control reconfiguration complete message transmitted by the remote terminal equipment” (paragraph [0004]). [In a process of establishing an indirect path, the access network device sends a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message to the remote UE and the remote UE return an RRC reconfiguration complete message to the access network device ([0004]).]
Both Hong and Yao teach systems in the field of radio communication networks, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Hong disclosure, the ability to receive a radio resource control reconfiguration complete message, as taught by Yao. Such inclusion would have provided a way to add direct paths to terminals, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 18,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 11.
Hong does not teach:
“a transmitter configured to transmit radio resource control reconfiguration complete message to the network device via the direct path and/or the indirect path”
Yao teaches:
“a transmitter configured to transmit radio resource control reconfiguration complete message to the network device via the direct path and/or the indirect path” (paragraph [0004]). [In a process of establishing an indirect path, the access network device sends a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message to the remote UE and the remote UE returns an RRC reconfiguration complete message to the access network device ([0004]).]
Both Hong and Yao teach systems in the field of radio communication networks, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Hong disclosure, the ability to receive a radio resource control reconfiguration complete message, as taught by Yao. Such inclusion would have provided a way to add direct paths to terminals, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 19,
Hong teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 11.
Hong does not teach:
“a receiver configured to receive a radio resource control reconfiguration complete message or PC5 connection establishment information transmitted by a remote terminal equipment; and processor circuitry configured to enter a radio resource control connected state after the receiver receives the radio resource control reconfiguration complete message or PC5 connection establishment information.”
Yao teaches:
“a receiver configured to receive a radio resource control reconfiguration complete message or PC5 connection establishment information transmitted by a remote terminal equipment; and processor circuitry configured to enter a radio resource control connected state after the receiver receives the radio resource control reconfiguration complete message or PC5 connection establishment information” (paragraphs [0004], [0096], [0044]). [In a process of establishing an indirect path, the access network device sends a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message to the remote UE and the remote UE returns an RRC reconfiguration complete message to the access network device ([0004]). If the relay UE is in the RRC non-connected state, the relay UE enters the RRC connected state based on the layer 2 destination ID, and if the DCR includes the layer 2 identity corresponding to the single path, it indicates that the DCR requests to establish the PC5 connection through the single path ([0096]). The communication apparatus includes a communication interface and a processor, and optionally, further includes a memory configured to store a computer program ([0044]).]
Both Hong and Yao teach systems in the field of radio communication networks, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Hong disclosure, the ability to receive a radio resource control reconfiguration complete message or a PC5 connection, as taught by Yao. Such inclusion would have provided a way to add direct paths to terminals, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 14, 17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would potentially be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, since all the claims are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), those rejections must be resolved before allowability can be achieved.
The following subject matter recited in Claims 4 and 14 was not found in the prior art:
wherein the information indicating that split transmission or duplication transmission is used between the direct path and the indirect path is for radio bearer; or
the information on a primary path comprises information of setting the primary path to the direct path.
The following subject matter recited in Claim 17 was not found in the prior art:
wherein, the receiver is further configured to receive second radio resource control reconfiguration information transmitted by the network device for adding the indirect path, and
the processor circuitry is further configured to control to add the indirect path according to the second radio resource control reconfiguration information; and/or,
the receiver is further configured to third radio resource control reconfiguration information transmitted by the network device for adding the direct path, and
the processor circuitry is further configured to perform a random access procedure to the network device according to the third radio resource control reconfiguration information, so as to add the direct path.
The following subject matter recited in Claim 20 was not found in the prior art:
wherein, after entering the radio resource control connected state, the receiver receives first radio resource control reconfiguration information transmitted by the network device for establishing an indirect path between the remote terminal equipment and the network device, and
the processor circuitry controls to add an indirect path between the remote terminal equipment and the network device according to the first radio resource control reconfiguration information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art references listed on Form PTO-892 and not used in the prior art rejections are also relevant to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454