DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
I. 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 Amendment
II. This action is in response to applicants amendment/arguments filed on April 28, 2026. This action is made FINAL.
Allowable Subject Matter
III. Claims 1, 24, and 31-32 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
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.
IV. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 15-22, 24-29, 31-32, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining RRM settings for the second UE based on the predicted future location of the second UE; determining RRM settings for the first UE based on the predicted future location of the second UE” in lines 5-12.
The specification describes in one embodiment predicting a future location for the second UE and RRM settings are determined based on and/or for the predicted future location, the RRM settings are related to the predicted future location (see the specification, page 16, lines 12-14) and in another embodiment determination of the RRM settings for the one or more first UEs based on the RRM settings for the second User Equipment comprises determining a network resource allocation for the future location (see the specification, page 16, lines 18-21).
Based on the above disclosure in the specification it is unclear whether the RRM settings for the first UE are determined based on a “predicted future location for the second UE” or “a network resource allocation for the future location” or both. The limitations render the claim indefinite failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “updating an RRM configuration of the second UE based on the determined RRM settings for the second UE; and updating an RRM configuration of the first UE based on the determined RRM settings for the first UE” in lines 9-12.
The specification describes “determining RRM settings for the one or more first UEs based on the second User Equipment comprises updating an RRM configuration of the second User Equipment based on the determined RRM settings for the second User Equipment and updating an RRM configuration of the first User Equipment based on the determined RRM settings for the second User Equipment (see the specification, page 17, lines 6-10).
Based on the above disclosure in the specification it is unclear whether updating the RRM configuration of the first UE is based on the determined RRM setting for the first UE as claimed or is based on the determined RRM setting for the second User equipment as described in the specification. The limitations render the claim indefinite failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 24, 31-32 and 34-35 contain limitations similar to the ones recited above in claim 1. Therefore, claims 24, 31-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite for the same reasons given above.
Claims 4-6, 15-22, and 25-29 are dependent on claims 1, 24, 31-32 and 34-35 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite for the same reasons given above.
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 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 nonobviousness.
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.
V. Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US 2021/0076220 A1) in view of Egner et al. (US 2017/0208540 A1).
Regarding claim 34 Hirano teaches a method performed by a first user equipment (UE) (see claim 13, any of the plurality of wireless devices reads on a method performed by a first user equipment (UE)), the method comprising: receiving radio resource (RRM) settings for the first UE (see claim 13 and claim 15, Updates to the configuration parameters are periodically transmitted to any one of the other wireless devices in the wireless. The configuration parameters include radio resource management (RRM) configuration data. The configuration data is used to update the settings of the device to master/slave. This reads on receiving radio resource (RRM) settings for the first UE), wherein the RRM settings for the first UE were received from a second UE (see claim 13 and claim 15, The current master device controlling the other devices periodically transmits updates to the configuration parameters to any one of the other wireless devices in the wireless. The configuration parameters include radio resource management (RRM) configuration data. The configuration data is used to update the settings of the device to master/slave. This reads on wherein the RRM settings for the first UE were received from a second UE).
Hirano does not specifically teach the RRM settings for the first UE were determined based on a predicted future location of the second UE.
Egner teaches RRM settings for a UE determined based on a predicted future location of the UE (see paragraphs [0142]; [0147]; [0148] and Fig. 8, The predicted future path of travel for a mobile device is determined. A location validation detects whether the predicted future path remains accurate. A change to the radio link or radio band (840, Fig. 8) on the mobile device is made based on the predicted future path location validation (835, Fig. 8). This reads on RRM settings for a UE determined based on a predicted future location of the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the RRM settings for the first UE received from the second UE in Hirano adapt to include the RRM settings for the first UE determined based on a predicted future location of the second UE because the determination of the predicted future location of the device in Egner can be used in the same way to determine the predicted future location of the current master device (second device) in Hirano. The current master device can transmit the updates to the configuration parameters (RRM configuration data) based on the predicted future location of the current master device. This would allow for a more efficient mechanism for setting a new active master device when the current master device is out of network (see Hirano, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 35 Hirano teaches a first user equipment (UE), the first UE comprising: memory; processing circuitry; and a receiver (network interface) (see claim 13 and Fig. 2) for receiving radio resource (RRM) settings for the first UE (see claim 13 and claim 15, Updates to the configuration parameters are periodically transmitted to any one of the other wireless devices in the wireless. The configuration parameters include radio resource management (RRM) configuration data. The configuration data is used to update the settings of the device to master/slave. This reads on receiving radio resource (RRM) settings for the first UE), wherein the RRM settings for the first UE were received from a second UE (see claim 13 and claim 15, The current master device controlling the other devices periodically transmits updates to the configuration parameters to any one of the other wireless devices in the wireless. The configuration parameters include radio resource management (RRM) configuration data. The configuration data is used to update the settings of the device to master/slave. This reads on wherein the RRM settings for the first UE were received from a second UE).
Hirano does not specifically teach the RRM settings for the first UE were determined based on a predicted future location of the second UE.
Egner teaches RRM settings for a UE determined based on a predicted future location of the UE (see paragraphs [0142]; [0147]; [0148] and Fig. 8, The predicted future path of travel for a mobile device is determined. A location validation detects whether the predicted future path remains accurate. A change to the radio link or radio band (840, Fig. 8) on the mobile device is made based on the predicted future path location validation (835, Fig. 8). This reads on RRM settings for a UE determined based on a predicted future location of the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the RRM settings for the first UE received from the second UE in Hirano adapt to include the RRM settings for the first UE determined based on a predicted future location of the second UE because the determination of the predicted future location of the device in Egner can be used in the same way to determine the predicted future location of the current master device (second device) in Hirano. The current master device can transmit the updates to the configuration parameters (RRM configuration data) based on the predicted future location of the current master device. This would allow for a more efficient mechanism for setting a new active master device when the current master device is out of network (see Hirano, paragraph [0058]).
Response to Arguments
VI. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-6, 15-22, 24-29, 31-32, and 34-35 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
VII. 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 BRANDON J MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-272-7869. 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.
/BRANDON J MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights