DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/12/26, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 15-18, 23-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugan et al. (U.S. 20170367073) in view of Hao et al. (U.S. 20260058768).
For claim 1, Murugan et al. disclose a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive, from a network entity, a capability query requesting one or more UE capabilities associated with a set of candidate UE configurations (at least Fig. 6, [0066]-[0069], [0071]-[0072] and [0094]-[0095]. The base station 604transmits a request 605, such as a capability enquiry message, including at least some capabilities determined or selected by the network. These network-specific capabilities may reflect features supported by (or implemented in) a particular network);
transmit, in response to the capability query, a capability message indicating at least a subset of the one or more UE capabilities associated with the set of candidate UE configurations (at least [0066], [0071], [0088] and [0097]. This request 605 triggers the UE 602 to respond at 608 and send the UE's capabilities related to only those CA combinations and/or set of features deployed by the wireless network operator in message 610 to base station 604. The UE may indicate yes/no or true/false using a Boolean type response for each of the CA band combinations in relation to which the base station requests capabilities information. The Boolean type response may be included in a UE Capability Information message. Additionally, the UE may include a response for the set of network-specific features for each of the CA band combinations that the UE supports. For example, the UE may send a bitstring to the eNB with each bit indicating whether or not the UE supports a particular feature from the set of network-specific features for the corresponding CA band combination.) However, Murugan et al. do not disclose the set of candidate UE configurations comprising a plurality of potential configuration profiles for the UE; and to receive, from the network entity, a control message indicating configuration information associated with at least one candidate UE configuration selected from the set of candidate UE configurations based on the capability message; and communicate with the network entity in accordance with the configuration information.
In the same field of endeavor, Hao et al. disclose to receive, from a network entity, a set of candidate UE configurations, the set of candidate UE configurations comprising a plurality of potential configuration profiles for the UE (at least [0052], [0058], [0061], [0062] and [0073]. The base station 100 broadcasts system information 601. The system information includes a model ID list indicating ML models supported by the base station 100. The model ID list in particular indicates supported decoders on the base station side. The model ID list may indicate the supported ML models per type of uplink control signaling, e.g., whether the ML model is supported for CSI, for beam management, for location information. In some cases, the system information 601 may include such model ID list per band, per band group, or per frequency range.); and
to receive, from the network entity, a control message indicating configuration information associated with at least one candidate UE configuration selected from the set of candidate UE configurations based on the capability message (at least [0063]-[0064], [0078]-[009] and [0084]. The UE 10 then sends a report 604 of the selected ML models to the base station 100. For example, the report 604 may identify the ML models that are supported by the UE 10 (including the ML models optionally downloaded at block 603) in terms of one or more model ID lists. The model ID list(s) may indicate the supported ML models per type of uplink control signaling, e.g., whether the ML model is supported for CSI, for beam management, for location information. In some cases, the report 604 may include such model ID list per band, per band group, or per frequency range. The report 604 may for example correspond to or be part of a UE capability report message. the base station 100 sends an RRC (Radio Resource Control) connection setup message 605 to the UE 10, and the UE responds with an RRC connection setup complete message 606 to configure the connection between the UE 10 and the base station 100. The RRC connection setup message 605 may indicate the ML model(s) to be applied by the UE 10 when sending uplink control signaling 607 to the base station 100.); and communicate with the network entity in accordance with the configuration information (at least [0063]-[0064], [0078]-[009] and [0084]. The wireless device may receive further control data. If at steps 830 and 840 the wireless device selected multiple ML models from the set and reported the multiple selected ML models to the first node, the further control data may indicate at least one of the reported ML models which is to be applied by the wireless device for encoding the uplink control signaling.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Murugan et al. as taught by Hao et al. for purpose of encodes uplink control signaling based on at least one of the one or more selected machine-learning models.
For claim 6, the combination of Murugan et al. and Hao et al. disclose the UE of claim 1. Murugan et al. disclose each UE capability of the at least subset of the one or more UE capabilities is associated with performing one or more UE operations in accordance with a candidate UE configuration from the set of candidate UE configurations (at least Fig. 7B, [0066], [0071], [0088] and [0097]. This request 605 triggers the UE 602 to respond at 608 and send the UE's capabilities related to only those CA combinations and/or set of features deployed by the wireless network operator in message 610 to base station 604. The UE may indicate yes/no or true/false using a Boolean type response for each of the CA band combinations in relation to which the base station requests capabilities information. The Boolean type response may be included in a UE Capability Information message. Additionally, the UE may include a response for the set of network-specific features for each of the CA band combinations that the UE supports. For example, the UE may send a bitstring to the eNB with each bit indicating whether or not the UE supports a particular feature from the set of network-specific features for the corresponding CA band combination.)
For claim 7, the combination of Murugan et al. and Hao et al. disclose the UE of claim 1. Murugan et al. disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive a second capability query requesting one or more second UE capabilities associated with a second set of candidate UE configurations; and transmit, in response to the second capability query, a second capability message indicating at least a subset of the one or more second UE capabilities associated with the second set of candidate UE configurations (at least [0093] and [0127]. UE capabilities may change, and/or network deployments may change that may need a new query. In order for the UE to report this change in UE capabilities to the network, the base station may again send a UE capability enquiry with CA band combinations to which the UE will respond with the UE's capabilities for each of the CA related aspects employed by the network.)
For claim 8, the combination of Murugan et al. and Hao et al. disclose the UE of claim 1. Murugan et al. disclose each candidate UE configuration of the set of candidate UE configurations comprises an indication of one or more bands, one or more band combinations, one or more band of band combinations, one or more component carriers, one or more bandwidths, one or more parameters associated with multiple input multiple output communications, a threshold quantity of layers, or any combination thereof (at least Fig. 7B, [0066], [0071], [0088] and [0097]. This request 605 triggers the UE 602 to respond at 608 and send the UE's capabilities related to only those CA combinations and/or set of features deployed by the wireless network operator in message 610 to base station 604. The UE may indicate yes/no or true/false using a Boolean type response for each of the CA band combinations in relation to which the base station requests capabilities information. The Boolean type response may be included in a UE Capability Information message. Additionally, the UE may include a response for the set of network-specific features for each of the CA band combinations that the UE supports. For example, the UE may send a bitstring to the eNB with each bit indicating whether or not the UE supports a particular feature from the set of network-specific features for the corresponding CA band combination.)
For claim 10, the claim has features similar to claim 1. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 1.
For claims 15-17, the claims have features similar to claims 6-8. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 6-8.
For claim 18, the claim has features similar to claim 1. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 1.
For claims 23-25, the claims have features similar to claims 6-8. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 6-8.
For claim 27, the claim has features similar to claim 1. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 1.
Claims 9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugan et al. (U.S. 20170367073) in view of Hao et al. (U.S. 20260058768) and further in view of Soldati et al. (U.S. 20250008443).
For claim 9, the combination of Murugan et al. and Hao et al. do not disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: input, into a machine learning model, the set of candidate UE configurations, wherein transmitting the capability message indicating the at least subset of the one or more UE capabilities is based at least in part on the machine learning model outputting the at least subset of the one or more UE capabilities.
In the same field of endeavor, Soldati et al. disclose to input, into a machine learning model, the set of candidate UE configurations, wherein transmitting the capability message indicating the at least subset of the one or more UE capabilities is based at least in part on the machine learning model outputting the at least subset of the one or more UE capabilities (t least [0088]. When executing an AI/ML algorithm for choosing a radio configurations for a UE involved in MR-DC operations to provide an optimal balance between UE and/or network energy related aspects and UE performance (e.g. fulfilment of QoS requirements), the network node may use one or more one or more information elements describing the current state of the UE, and one or more information elements describing the state of the network. In one example, based on this information, the AI/ML algorithm could determine the optimal radio configuration of the UE among a set of possible radio configurations that can be applied to the UE involved in MR-DC operations.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Murugan et al. as taught by Soldati et al. for purpose of determining a final radio configuration for the UE in MR-DC operation based on the optimal radio configuration.
For claim 26, the claim has features similar to claim 9. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 11-14, 19-22 and 28-30 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7687.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAI PHUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights