DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted October 24, 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 8-11, 23-37, 30-34, and 36-41 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues claims 8, 24, and 31 should not be rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because these claims do not recite “translating… parameters,” which is a limitation of claim 9 (Remarks, p. 6). The Examiner has carefully considered this point, but notes the claims are rejected because of the “providing [to/for the UE]” of these parameters (claim 1, line 9). The Examiner does not see in the specification wherein the PCF receives parameters (claim 1, line 3)1, and subsequently transmits2 these same parameters to the UE.
Applicant nevertheless directs attention to paragraph [0043] of the specification, and asserts “the PCF translat[ing] the information from the AF into policy rules and then provid[ing] the translated policy rules to UE1” is adequate support for 35 USC 112(a). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because even this paragraph [0043] describes that which is received from the AF (“information”) as different than what is provided to the UE (“rules”). The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is therefore maintained. However, this rejection will be withdrawn and/or overcome if the claim is amended to adopt the language of paragraph [0043]. The Examiner notes that the claim(s) have been interpreted similar to the manner described in paragraph [0043]. For instance, the previously set forth rejection under 35 USC 112(b) sets forth the interpretation as providing, to the first UE, the policy rules for the SL session.
This rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn and/or overcome. However, Applicant’s statement that the claims have been amended “in accordance with the Examiner’s suggestions” (Remarks, p. 7) is inaccurate, as the previous Office action set forth the interpretation of providing, to the first UE, “the policy rules for the SL session” (p. 3), which is in congruence with Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to teach “receiving, from an application server (AS), a provisioning of sidelink (SL) parameters… the SL parameters including at least… a path selection policy for PC5 interface selection” (Remarks, pp. 8-9). Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
4. Claims 8, 24, 31, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s specification lacks adequate support for a transmission by the PCF to the UE of the parameters received from the AS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 nonobviousness.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 8-10, 24-26, 31-33, and 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0279075 (hereinafter “Fan”), alternatively in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0367026 (hereinafter “Li`026”), in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0261757 (hereinafter “Rajadurai”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0322202 (hereinafter “Li`202”).
Regarding claims 8, 24, and 31: Fan teaches a policy control function (PCF) of a core network (see, e.g., [0045], figures 1-3), comprising: one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from an application server (AS), a provisioning of sidelink (SL) parameters for an interactive service for a user equipment (UE) group comprising a first UE and at least one further UE connected via a SL to the first UE, the SL parameters including at least session management parameters for sidelink group communication (see, e.g., [0069]-[0072]; note also [0008]-[0009], [0044], [0058], and/or [0099]; a provisioning of parameters is received; note also interactive services and D2D communication); and
providing, to the first UE, the SL parameters (see, e.g., [0008], [0013], [0045]; rules are sent that are based on the policy).
To the extent Fan does not inherently teach a first feature of “session management parameters” thereafter translated into the rules (note the messaging is for session management, policy control, and/or charging), this feature is nevertheless taught by Li`026 (see, e.g., [0052]; note also [0011], [0060], and [0092]; note session parameters). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Li`026, such as the parameter signaling, within the system of Fan, in order to improve session management.
Fan modified by Li`026 fails to explicitly state the second feature of “a validity time, wherein the validity time indicates when the session management parameters for sidelink group communication are to expire.” However, this feature is taught by Rajadurai (see, e.g., [0036], [0046], [0047], [0053], [0101]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Rajadurai, such as the parameter signaling, within the system of Fan modified by Li`026, in order to improve reporting and/or charging accuracy.
Fan modified by Li`026 and Rajadurai further teaches the third feature of “a path selection policy for PC5 interface path selection” (see, e.g., Fan [0038]-[0045], [0069]-[0072]; and/or Li`026 [0092], [0101]). To the extent this feature is not inherent to Fan modified by Li`026 and Rajadurai, it is nevertheless taught in Li`202 (see, e.g., [0274], [0287]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Li`202, such as the parameter signaling, within the system of Fan modified by Li`026 and Rajadurai, in order to improve sidelink throughput.
The rationale set forth above regarding the PCF of claim 8 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 24 and 31, respectively.
Regarding claims 9, 25 and 32: Fan modified by Li`026, Rajadurai, and Li`202 further teaches translating at least a portion of the SL parameters into policy rules comprising charging rules (see, e.g., Fan [0008], [0013], [0045]; also Rajadurai [0036], [0046]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 9.
The rationale set forth above regarding the PCF of claim 9 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 25 and 32, respectively.
Regarding claims 10, 26, and 33: Fan modified by Li`026, Rajadurai, and Li`202 further teaches wherein the policy rules comprise a rule indicating the first UE is to report SL usage (see, e.g., Fan [0006] and [0041]).
The rationale set forth above regarding the PCF of claim 10 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 26 and 33, respectively.
Regarding claims 36, 38, and 40: Fan modified by Li`026, Rajadurai, and Li`202 further teaches wherein the path selection policy for PC5 interface path selection comprises traffic routing rules for PC5 path selection (see, e.g., Fan [0038]-[0045], [0069]-[0072]; Li`026 [0092], [0101]; and/or Li`202 [0274], [0287]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 36.
The rationale set forth above regarding the PCF of claim 36 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 38 and 40, respectively.
Regarding claims 37, 39, and 41: Fan modified by Li`026, Rajadurai, and Li`202 further teaches wherein the SL parameters are provided to the first UE via a UE configuration update procedure (see, e.g., Fan [0075], [0104]; Li`026 [0108], [0129]; and/or Li`202 [0306], [0324]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 37.
The rationale set forth above regarding the PCF of claim 37 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 39 and 41, respectively.
10. Claims 11, 23, 27, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, alternatively in view of Li`026, in further view of Rajadurai, and in further view of Li`202, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0262924 (hereinafter “Dao”).
Regarding claims 11, 27, and 34: Fan modified by Li`026, Rajadurai, and Li`202 further teaches wherein the policy rules comprise a rule indicating the first UE is to report a duration of the SL session (see, e.g., Li`026 [0101]; Rajadurai [0034], [0035]). To the extent this feature is not inherent to Fan modified by Dao and Li`026, it is nevertheless taught in Dao (see, e.g. Dao [0060]-[0062], [0107]-[0108]; note also [0029]-[0033], [0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Dai, such as the parameter signaling, within the system of Fan modified by Li`026, Rajadurai, and Li`202, in order to improve session management.
The rationale set forth above regarding the PCF of claim 11 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 27 and 34, respectively.
Regarding claims 23 and 30: Fan modified by Li`026, Rajadurai, and Li`202 further teaches provisioning a session management function (SMF) of a core network (CN) with the policy rules so that the SMF can determine a duration of the SL session in accordance with the charging rules (see, e.g., Li`026 [0101]; Rajadurai [0034], [0035]). To the extent this feature is not inherent to Fan modified by Dao and Li`026, it is nevertheless taught in Dao (see, e.g. Dao [0060]-[0062], [0107]-[0108]; note also [0029]-[0033], [0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Dai, such as the parameter signaling, within the system of Fan modified by Li`026, Rajadurai, and Li`202, in order to improve session management.
The rationale set forth above regarding the PCF of claim 23 is applicable to the method and medium of claim 30.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 Applicant confirmed the limitation of “receiving… a provisioning of sidelink (SL) parameters” to mean receiving sidelink parameters (see the Interview Summary mailed July 24, 2025, item 2).
2 “Providing,” in this context, is interpreted as transmitting (either directly or indirectly).