Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/285,105

METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SUPPORTING ADAPTIVE QUALITY OF SERVICE (QOS) IN SIDELINK RELAYS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Examiner
YUEN, KAN
Art Unit
2464
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Interdigital Patent Holdings, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
738 granted / 833 resolved
+30.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
860
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 833 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Restriction Applicant’s Restriction arguments, see remark on page 1, filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to claims 1-21 have been acknowledged. The applicant elects, without traverse, Group I, claims 1-8 and 15-21. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 7, line 3, the term “the default relay latency” should be changed to “ a default relay latency”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paladugu et al. (Pub No.: 2021/0289391). Regarding claim 1, Paladugu et al. discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (read as the UE 115-a (e.g., remote UE) in fig. 2) comprising: a transceiver (see transceiver 1620 in fig. 16) and a processor (see processor 1640 in fig. 16) configured to: receive a configuration, from a wireless network (read as base station 105-a in fig. 2), the configuration (read as configuration message 220-c in fig. 2 and/or QoS indicator 325-a in fig. 3) indicating an initial first hop latency budget for communications via a relay WTRU (Paladugu et al. see fig. 2, configuration messages 220-b and 220c; fig. 3, UE 115-c and UE 115-d, QoS indicator 325-a; para. 0011, 0017 0186, 0197, 0198; the base station 105-a (e.g., a network entity) may transmit a configuration message 220-b (e.g., corresponding to the configuration message 220-a) to the UE 115-b indicating the QoS configuration and the QoS characteristics for the connections 205… The UE 115-b may forward a configuration message 220-c to the UE 115-a based on the configuration message 220-b.). The remote UE receives the configuration message 220-c from the base station 105-a. The configuration message 220-c may correspond to QoS indicator 325-a indicating of QoS identifier associated with an initial/first hop packet delay budget between the remote 115c and relay UE 115-d in fig. 3, receive one or more packets from a higher layer (Paladugu et al. see fig. 5, application layer 510, SDAP layer 520-a; fig. 6, packets 605; para. 0204, 0205, 0210; For example, each sidelink user plane protocol stack in each UE 115 may include a function for a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) in an SDAP 520 function (e.g., for mapping a QoS flow within a PDU session to a corresponding DRB),). The UE 115-g receives/transmits packets from/to a higher layer such as SDAP layer, receive an indication from the relay WTRU (Paladugu et al. see para. 0187-0189; In para. 0188, Based on the link quality report and the assistance information message, the base station 105-a may update the QoS configuration, which may include determining an updated set of QoS characteristics for the connection 205-a, the connection 205-b, or both. The base station 105-a may transmit a second configuration message 220-b indicating the updated QoS configuration to the UE 115-b, and the UE 115-b may apply the updated QoS configuration for communicating over the relay connection.). Thus, the updated QoS configuration is transmitted to the UE 115-a via UE 115-b, and determine an updated first hop latency budget based at least on the received indication (Paladugu et al. see para. 0187-0189; To enable the techniques as described herein, relay service QoS information may be provisioned to the UE 115-a (e.g., the remote UE) and the UE 115-b (e.g., the relay UE).). The UE 115-a determines/receives the updated first hop latency budget from the UE 115-b, and transmit the one or more packets using the updated first hop latency budget (Paladugu et al. see para. 0187-0189; The base station 105-a may transmit a second configuration message 220-b indicating the updated QoS configuration to the UE 115-b, and the UE 115-b may apply the updated QoS configuration for communicating over the relay connection.). The UE 115-a and UE 115-b may apply the updated QoS configuration for communication packets. Claim 15 is rejected similarly to claim 1. Regarding claims 2, 16, Paladugu et al. discloses the feature wherein the configuration further includes at least one of a channel busy ratio (CBR) threshold, a default relay latency, or an end-to-end (E2E) latency (Paladugu et al. see para. 0099, 0127, 0173, 0198; the indication of the QoS configuration includes an end-to-end QoS configuration for the first connection and the second connection.). The QoS configuration includes end-to-end QoS configuration (e.g., delay). Regarding claim 7, Paladugu et al. discloses the feature wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to determine the updated first hop latency budget based on at least one of a determined second hop latency, the E2E latency, or the default relay latency (Paladugu et al. see para. 0187- 0189; the base station 105-a may receive the link quality report via the relay connection in an assistance information message from the UE 115-b indicating information about the connection 205-a (e.g., a sidelink connection) between the UE 115-a and the UE 115-b (e.g., a SidelinkUEAssistanceInformation message. Based on the link quality report and the assistance information message, the base station 105-a may update the QoS configuration, which may include determining an updated set of QoS characteristics for the connection 205-a, the connection 205-b, or both.).). The updated first hop latency budget is based on the first channel conditions for the connection 205-a (e.g., the first/default relay latency). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. 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) 8, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al. (Pub No.: 2021/0289391) in view of Srinivasan et al. (Pub No.: 2023/0127924). Regarding claims 8, 21, paladugu et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein the indication is an indication of an updated relay latency. Srinivasan et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein the indication is an indication of an updated relay latency (Srinivasan et al. see para. 0130, 0132-0143; in case the UE acts as a relaying entity for a plurality of remote UEs, the QoS_FR indicates which of the sidelinks connecting the remote UEs to the UE do not fulfil or satisfy the predefined or negotiated QoS). The relay UE transmits QoS_FR as an indication to indicate predicted QoS failure. The indication includes packet delay/latency. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Paladugu et al. and to implement with the feature as taught by Srinivasan et al. wherein the relay UE transmits a predicted QoS failure indicating updated packet delay to remote UE. The motivation would be to improve transmission reliability. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-6, 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner's Note The Applicant is welcome to request a telephonic interview if the Applicant has any questions or requires any additional information that would further or expedite the prosecution of the application. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu et al. (Pub No.: 2023/0262513) discloses a communication method and apparatus. A sidelink resource is determined that meets a quality of service requirement of to-be-transmitted data to improve data transmission efficiency in a 4G system, a 5G system, and/or a future communication system, for example, a 6G system. A first terminal device receives delay information, determines a first packet delay budget, and determines a resource for transmitting data on a sidelink. The delay information indicates a packet delay budget that data transmission is to meet, the first packet delay budget is a packet delay budget that is to be met in response to data being transmitted on the sidelink, and the sidelink is a link for transmitting data between the first terminal device and a second terminal device. Deng (Pub No.: 2023/0262793) discloses a method for communication between a user terminal and a network, and a terminal, a network device and an apparatus, wherein same are used to more accurately provide end-to-end quality of service for a remote UE, such that the remote UE achieves the aim of communicating with the network. The method comprises: a relay user terminal UE determining a communication delay PC5 PDB of a PC5 interface and a communication delay Uu PDB of a Uu interface; the relay UE sending the PC5 PDB to a remote user terminal UE, such that the remote UE communicates with the relay UE according to the PC5 PDB; and the relay UE communicating with a core network according to the Uu PDB sent by a session management function (SMF). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am-7pm. 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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. /KAN YUEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604235
WIRELESS NETWORK LOAD BALANCING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592765
Software-Defined Filtering in a Repeater
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593246
PREDICTIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)-BASED WIRELESS STATION LOAD BALANCING BASED ON ACCESS POINT UPLINK UTILIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587907
Handover method and apparatus, and information transmitting method and apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587927
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR CONDITIONAL RECONFIGURATION IN INTEGRATED ACCESS AND BACKHAUL (IAB)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 833 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month