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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 02/27/2026.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/27/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22, specifically independent claims 1, 8, and 14, contain new limitations such as “wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow”. However, the original specification only describes that the communication device maps the plurality of quality of service flow profiles for the QoS flow based on the obtained mapping rule (paragraph 12); the UE may map a plurality of sets of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow according to the QoS mapping rule provided by the core network element (paragraph 76); the distributed unit (DU) selects an appropriate QoS profile from the plurality of sets of QoS profiles or generates a QoS profile by itself, (paragraphs 135).
Claim 2-6, 9-13, 15-19, and 21-22 depends on claim 1, 8, and 14 respectively, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
NOTE: For clarification of record, Examiner would like to state that the claimed invention is only entitled to the priority date of 02/27/2026, since the limitation(s) “wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow” as recited in all independent claims (1, 8, and 14) is/are NOT supported by the originally filed specification.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230015755_A1_Wang in view of US_20210409996_A1_Zhang, US_20210136620_A1_Laitila, and US_20230232487_A1_Freda.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a communication method used between terminals (Wang figures 3, 12), comprising: mapping, by the communication device, a plurality of quality of service (QoS) profiles for a QoS flow (Wang paragraph 51, “…When UE performs state transition, the mapping between PC5 QoS flow (the PC5 QoS flow can be represented by a PC5 QoS flow identifier (PFI) or a PC5 QoS profile (such as PQI, range and so on)) and SLRB should follow the SLRB configurations of the new UE state”, paragraph 56, “…besides the SLRB identifiers and QoS flow information mapped to the SLRB… QoS information of QoS flows mapped to each SLRB (identified by SLRB ID)…”); and sending, by the communication device, at least one of the plurality of QoS profiles for communication between terminals to a network device (Wang paragraph 57, “The BS, upon receiving the PCS QoS profile(s) of QoS flow in sidelink UEinformation and information about established SLRBs in previous state from UE…”), but does not disclose at least one of the plurality of QoS profiles that is selected based on sidelink configuration information, and obtaining, by a communication device, a mapping rule of quality of service (QoS), and the mapping is based on the mapping rule; and wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow.
Zhang discloses one of the plurality of QoS profiles that is selected based on sidelink configuration information (Zhang paragraph 52, “…The gNB may map the requested SL QoS flow to either an existing SL DRB or a new SL DRB and send the mapping and relevant configurations to the UE…”, paragraph 60, “…it may first find the associated QoS profiles according to (pre)configuration… the UE sends a QoS flow establishment request containing the requested QFI and associated QoS profiles to gNB…”)., but does not disclose obtaining, by a communication device, a mapping rule of quality of service (QoS), and the mapping is based on the mapping rule, and wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow.
Laitila discloses obtaining, by a communication device, a mapping rule of quality of service (QoS) (Laitila paragraph 34, “Explicit Configuration: QoS flow to DRB mapping rules can be explicitly signalled by RRC”), and the mapping is based on the mapping rule (Laitila paragraph 32, “Access stratum (AS)-level mapping rules in the UE and in the NG-RAN associate UL/DL QoS flows with DRBs...The QoS flow to DRB mapping by NG-RAN is based on QFI and the associated QoS profiles (i.e., QoS parameters and QoS characteristics)”, and paragraph 45, “…It may be noted that the gNB 112 may determine that there are many QoS profiles the gNB 112 is able to provide to the UE 120, but the gNB 112 may select one of those…”), but does not disclose wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow.
Freda discloses wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow (Freda paragraph 217, “The SDAP layer in the WTRU may be configured with a QoS flow to SLRB mapping rule… A WTRU may receive (e.g., within a (each) SLRB configuration) the allowable QoS profiles associated with a (e.g., each) flow that may be allowed on the SLRB configuration…” The WTRU determines the QoS profiles associated with a flow from the received configuration message according to the SLRB mapping rule).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Zhang’s find the associated QoS profiles according to (pre)configuration to the UE, and Laitila’s mapping based on the received mapping rule, and Freda’s the WTRU may receive the allowable QoS profiles associated with a flow that may be allowed on the SLRB configuration in Wang’s system to select the most suitable QoS profiles, and to perform communication based on the mapping rule. This method for improving the system of Wang was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zhang, Laitila and Freda. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the communication method according to claim 1, and Wang further discloses wherein the sending, by the communication device, at least one of the plurality of QoS profiles to a network device comprises: sending, by the communication device, the plurality of QoS profiles (Wang paragraph 57, “The BS, upon receiving the PCS QoS profile(s) of QoS flow in sidelink UEinformation and information about established SLRBs in previous state from UE…”), an identifier of the QoS flow (Wang paragraph 56, “…the UE sends sidelink UEinformation including the PCS QoS flow identifier (PFI) to the BS for SLRB configuration and SL resource allocation…”), and a destination identifier to the network device (Wang paragraph 56, “…the reported information may include destination ID,…”).
Regarding claim 4, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the communication the method according to claim 1, and Zhang further discloses wherein the communication method further comprises: receiving, by the communication device, sidelink configuration information sent by the network device (Zhang paragraph 58, “…The gNB may map the requested SL QoS flow to either an existing SL DRB or a new SL DRB and send the mapping and relevant configurations to the UE…”); and selecting, by the communication device, one of the plurality of QoS profiles based on the sidelink configuration information (Zhang paragraph 60, “…it may first find the associated QoS profiles according to (pre)configuration… the UE sends a QoS flow establishment request containing the requested QFI and associated QoS profiles to gNB…”).
Regarding claim 5, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the communication the communication method according to claim 4, and Wang further discloses wherein the sending, by the communication device, at least one of the plurality of QoS profiles to a network device comprises: sending, by the communication device, the selected QoS profile to the network device (Wang paragraph 57, “The BS, upon receiving the PCS QoS profile(s) of QoS flow in sidelink UEinformation and information about established SLRBs in previous state from UE…”).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses a communication method used between terminals (Wang figures 3, 12), comprising: obtaining, by a network device, at least one quality of service (QoS) profile for communication between terminals (Wang paragraph 57, “The BS, upon receiving the PCS QoS profile(s) of QoS flow in sidelink UEinformation and information about established SLRBs in previous state from UE…”), wherein the plurality of QoS profiles correspond to a QoS flow (Wang paragraph 57, “PCS QoS profile(s) of QoS flow, also read paragraphs 51, 56), but does not disclose at least one quality of service (QoS) profile of a plurality of QoS profiles that is selected based on sidelink configuration information, and obtaining, by a communication device, a mapping rule of quality of service (QoS), and the mapping is based on the mapping rule; and wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow.
Zhang discloses at least one quality of service (QoS) profile of a plurality of QoS profiles that is selected based on sidelink configuration information (Zhang paragraph 58, “…The gNB may map the requested SL QoS flow to either an existing SL DRB or a new SL DRB and send the mapping and relevant configurations to the UE…”, paragraph 60, “…it may first find the associated QoS profiles according to (pre)configuration… the UE sends a QoS flow establishment request containing the requested QFI and associated QoS profiles to gNB…”), but does not disclose wherein the plurality of QoS profiles are mapped for the QoS flow based on a mapping rule of QoS; and wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow.
Laitila discloses wherein the plurality of QoS profiles are mapped for the QoS flow based on a mapping rule of QoS (Laitila paragraph 34, “Explicit Configuration: QoS flow to DRB mapping rules can be explicitly signalled by RRC”, paragraph 32, “Access stratum (AS)-level mapping rules in the UE and in the NG-RAN associate UL/DL QoS flows with DRBs...The QoS flow to DRB mapping by NG-RAN is based on QFI and the associated QoS profiles (i.e., QoS parameters and QoS characteristics)”, and paragraph 45, “…It may be noted that the gNB 112 may determine that there are many QoS profiles the gNB 112 is able to provide to the UE 120, but the gNB 112 may select one of those…”), but does not disclose wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow.
Freda discloses wherein the mapping rule instructs the communication device to generate a plurality of QoS profiles for a single QoS flow (Freda paragraph 217, “The SDAP layer in the WTRU may be configured with a QoS flow to SLRB mapping rule… A WTRU may receive (e.g., within a (each) SLRB configuration) the allowable QoS profiles associated with a (e.g., each) flow that may be allowed on the SLRB configuration…” The WTRU determines the QoS profiles associated with a flow from the received configuration message according to the SLRB mapping rule).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Zhang’s find the associated QoS profiles according to (pre)configuration to the UE, and Laitila’s mapping based on the received mapping rule, and Freda’s the WTRU may receive the allowable QoS profiles associated with a flow that may be allowed on the SLRB configuration in Wang’s system to select the most suitable QoS profiles, and to perform communication based on the mapping rule. This method for improving the system of Wang was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zhang, Laitila and Freda. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Wang, Zhang and Laitila disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the communication method according to claim 9, and Wang further discloses wherein the communication method further comprises: sending, by the network device, sidelink configuration information to the communication device (Wang figure 12, step of “RRC ReConfig (SLRB config)”).
Regarding claim 12, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 14, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Wang further discloses a communication apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor (Wang figure 2, and paragraphs 28, 88).
Regarding claim 15, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the communication method according to claim 1, and Laitila further discloses wherein the QoS flow comprises uplink data or downlink data having a same QoS parameter (Laitila, paragraph 33, “Reflective mapping: for each DRB, the UE monitors the QFI(s) of the downlink packets and applies the same mapping in the uplink; that is, for a DRB, the UE maps the uplink packets belonging to the QoS flows(s) corresponding to the QFI(s) and PDU Session observed in the downlink packets for that DRB. To enable this reflective mapping, the NG-RAN marks downlink packets over Uu with QFI”, and paragraph 37, “A QoS profile may comprise QoS parameters, such as 5QI (5G QoS Identifier) and/or allocation and retention priority (ARP). For guaranteed bit rate (GBR) QoS flow the parameters may comprise e.g., GFBR (Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate), MFBR (Maximum Flow Bit Rate) and/or a maximum packet loss rate for both uplink and downlink…”. Also see paragraphs 31-32).
Regarding claim 22, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 21.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230015755_A1_Wang in view of US_20210409996_A1_Zhang, US_20210136620_A1_Laitila, US_20230232487_A1_Freda and US_20200314959_A1_Agiwal.
Regarding claim 3, Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda disclose the communication method according to claim 2, but does not discloses further comprising: receiving, by the communication device, indication information from the network device that indicates one of the plurality of QoS profiles.
Agiwal discloses receiving, by the communication device, indication information from the network device that indicates one of the plurality of QoS profiles ((Agiwal paragraph 168, “network can indicate QoS profiles/QoS flow IDs associated with each type (model/mode2) of transmission resources...”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Agiwal’s network can indicate QoS profiles to the UE in Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda’s system to let the UE configure the resources accordingly (Agiwal paragraph 168). This method for improving the system of Wang, Zhang, Laitila and Freda was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Agiwal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda and Agiwal to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda and Agiwal disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda and Agiwal disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230015755_A1_Wang in view of US_20210409996_A1_Zhang, US_20210136620_A1_Laitila, US_20230232487_A1_Freda and US_20160286374_A1_Baghel.
Regarding claim 6, Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda disclose the communication the communication method according to claim 4, but do not disclose wherein the sidelink configuration information comprises at least one of a channel busy ratio, a reference signal received power, reference signal received quality, or channel state information.
Wang-75 discloses wherein the sidelink configuration information comprises at least one of a channel busy ratio, a reference signal received power, reference signal received quality, or channel state information (Baghel figure 6, step 608, and paragraph 62, “…UE 504 may receive configuration information in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message or in a system information block (SIB) that includes a reference signal received power (RSRP) threshold and hysteresis”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Baghel’s the UE may receive configuration information in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that includes a reference signal received power (RSRP) threshold and hysteresis in Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda’s system to let the UE determine the radio link quality between the UEs (Baghel paragraph 65). This method for improving the system of Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Baghel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda and Baghel to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda and Baghel disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, Wang, Zhang, Laitila, Freda and Baghel disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights