CTNF 18/652,550 CTNF 83748 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims 2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 05/01/2024 . Claims 1 and through 20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 3. 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word "means" or "step" but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(£) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function (see specification paragraphs 105-11). Such claim limitation (s) are: means for receiving; means for communicating; means for transmitting, and means for determining in claim 20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 5. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because it recites the limitations: “receive configuration information for a radio link, wherein the configuration information enables UE prediction of radio link failure events that will impact a data rate , a spectrum efficiency , or a latency , for communications via the radio link”; “determine, based at least in part on the configuration information, that a predicted data rate , a predicted spectrum efficiency , or a predicted latency , for the communications via the radio link will be below a threshold data rate value , below a threshold spectrum efficiency value, or above a threshold latency value, at a future time instance”; “transmit an indication to the network entity that indicates the predicted data rate will be below the threshold data rate value , the predicted spectrum efficiency will be below the threshold spectrum efficiency value , or the predicted latency will be above the threshold latency value , and the future time instance”. The “ or ” option provides a choice of examining for example one of a data rate , a spectrum efficiency , or a latency . If for example a data rate is chosen for examination, then dependent claims that consider a spectrum efficiency , or a latency for examination will be rejected for insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because of their dependency from claim 1. Claim 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because of the same reasons mentioned for claim 1-11. Claim 3 recites the limitation “determine a first time associated with the predicted QoE”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation “quality of experience (QoE) degradation based at least in part on a quantity of data in the data buffer and the difference between the first data rate and the second data rate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites the limitation “determine a first time associated with the predicted QoE”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0344085 A1) in view of Ryden et al. (US 2023/0370181 A1) . For claim 1 Kim teaches a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 5 “UE 100”) , comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 5 “memories 104”) ; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (Fig. 5 “processor 102 coupled with memeories104”) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive configuration information for a radio link, wherein the configuration information enables UE prediction of radio link failure events that will impact a data rate, a spectrum efficiency, or a latency, for communications via the radio link (Fig. 22 and paragraphs 7-10 “receiving radio link monitoring configuration, deriving predictive radio link problem, and transmitting information on predictive radio link problem such as data rate, latency due to radio link problems” and Fig. 24 “(1) Receive configurations for early recovery including time T_recovery” & (2) Deriving predictions for radio link failure (RLF) RLF is predictive for the time t_prediction”) ; communicate with a network entity via the radio link (Fig. 20-21 “link establishment” and Fig. 22 “transmitting information on predictive radio link problem”) ; determine, based at least in part on the configuration information, that a predicted data rate, a predicted spectrum efficiency, or a predicted latency, for the communications via the radio link will be below a threshold data rate value, below a threshold spectrum efficiency value, or above a threshold latency value, at a future time instance (paragraph 9 “predicting radio link problem” and paragraph 444 “link problems: link failures and beam failures. These issues negatively impact reliability and introduce high latency due to recovery procedures, thereby preventing the achievement of high data rates”, paragraphs 356-357 “RSRP threshold for the beam failure recovery”) ; and transmit an indication to the network entity that indicates the predicted data rate will be below the threshold data rate value, the predicted spectrum efficiency will be below the threshold spectrum efficiency value, or the predicted latency will be above the threshold latency value, and the future time instance (paragraph 122 “UE measurement reporting and control of the reporting; detection and recovery from radio link failure” and paragraphs 227 -231 “Step 0 to at least step 3 “the UE sends measurement report message to NG-RAN node 1 including the required measurement”) . Kim does not explicitly teach the predicted data rate will be below the threshold data rate value, the predicted spectrum efficiency will be below the threshold spectrum efficiency value, or the predicted latency will be above the threshold latency value, and the future time instance. However, Ryden teaches an exemplary prediction report can comprise a predicted interference value using the available reporting metrics ( e.g., SINR, RSRQ, RSRP, RSSI, CQI, Interference plus Noise estimate); a probability that the interference power is above or below a certain threshold value a predicted throughput value (data rate) or throughput increase or decrease based on the predicted interference and the current serving cell quality in terms of serving cell link beam quality (serving cell CSI); a predicted throughput value or throughput increase or decrease based on the predicted interference and the predicted current serving cell quality in terms of serving cell link beam quality (serving cell CSI) ( Ryden: paragraph 83) . In addition, Ryden teaches a measurement procedure may be provided for the purpose of monitoring data rate, latency and other factors (spectrum efficiency) on which the one or more embodiments improve ( Ryden: paragraph 198) . In addition, Ryden teaches the condition is related to the UE's current BSR (assuming this is a TDD spectrum) indicating the buffer status to be above/below a certain threshold ( Ryden: paragraph 77) . In addition, Ryden teaches AI/ML for traffic steering, both comprising capacity improvements; energy efficiency AI/ML for QoS prediction ( Ryden: paragraphs 327-333 and 354-356) . In addition, Ryden teaches monitoring and reporting predicted QoS ( Ryden: Fig. 26) . Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teaching of Ryden in the radio link monitoring of Kim in order to train an artificial intelligence (AI) or a machine-learning (ML) to predicate fluctuation of a subject (data rate) and inform a network entity of a network ( Ryden: paragraph 83) . For claim 2 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE, wherein, to transmit the indication to the network entity, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a predicted radio link failure indication or an indication that a predicted quality of experience (QoE) associated with the communications will be below a QoE threshold associated with the threshold data rate value, the threshold spectrum efficiency value, or the threshold latency value ( Kim: Fig. 23 “S2304 “UE sends indication including predictive beam failure” and Fig. 24 “(1) Receive configurations for early recovery including time T_recovery; (2) Deriving predictions for radio link failure (RLF) RLF is predictive for the time t_prediction; & (3) Send an indication for predictive result with time t_ prediction”) . For claim 3 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine a first time associated with the predicted QoE , the predicted radio link failure, or a beam failure, and wherein the future time instance indicates the first time Kim: Fig. 23 “S2305 “UE determines time window for receiving recovery command” and Fig. 24 “(1) Receive configurations for early recovery including time T_recovery; (2) Deriving predictions for radio link failure (RLF) RLF is predictive for the time t_prediction; & (3) Send an indication for predictive result with time t_ prediction”) . For claim 4 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the network entity, an update to one or more communication parameters associated with the radio link (paragraph 532 “The network may update the machine learning model and parameters related to the machine learning model”, paragraph 214 “RAN Intelligence could observe multiple HO events with associated parameters, use this information to train its ML model and try to identify sets of parameters that lead to successful HOs and sets of parameters that lead to unintended events”) , wherein the one or more communication parameters comprise one or more of a scheduling configuration , a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) configuration , a mobility parameter ( Kim: paragraph 215 “UE mobility prediction is also one key factor (parameter) in the optimization of early data forwarding particularly for CHO”) , a bandwidth part (BWP) parameter ( Kim: paragraph 129 “Only one BWP among BWPs configured to the UE can active at a time. The active BWP defines the UE's operating bandwidth within the cell's operating band width”) , a carrier aggregation configuration (paragraph 133 “carrier aggregation”) , a dual-connectivity configuration (paragraph 133 “dual connectivity (DC)”) , an uplink waveform, a beam switch and management configuration , a load balancing configuration or any combination thereof ( Kim: Fig. 23 “S2304 “UE sends indication including predictive beam failure”) . For claim 5 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a capability message that indicates a UE capability for one or more of predictive data rate, spectrum efficiency , latency, or quality of experience (QoE) determination ( Ryden: paragraph 70 “the network can ask for capabilities in a UE predicted interference value for a certain time-frequency resource. In another embodiment, a capable UE can indicate that it is able to use AI/ML techniques to learn what signals are from neighboring nodes with respect to its serving node by observing RSRP, reference signal received quality (RSRQ) and received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements over time, and thus estimate when the interfering traffic is not coming from the serving cell.” and Fig. 26 “QoS (QoE) level prediction” and paragraph 198 “A measurement procedure may be provided for the purpose of monitoring data rate, latency and other factors on which the one or more embodiments improve”) . For claim 6 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE, wherein, to determine, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine that a difference between a first data rate at which data is being removed from a data buffer associated with the communications and a second data rate at which data is being added to the data buffer exceeds a threshold value ( Ryden: paragraph 77 “the condition is related to the UE's current BSR (assuming this is a TDD spectrum) indicating the buffer status to be above/below a certain threshold”) . For claim 7 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine the future time instance associated with one or more of an empty buffer ( Ryden: paragraph 77 “the condition is related to the UE's current BSR (assuming this is a TDD spectrum) indicating the buffer status to be above/below a certain threshold”) or quality of experience (QoE) degradation based at least in part on a quantity of data in the data buffer and the difference between the first data rate and the second data rate . For claim 8 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE, wherein the future time instance is based at least in part on a timer associated with a radio link or beam failure or low spectrum efficiency detection ( Kim: at least paragraph 488 “The recovery time information may be configured separately for radio link failure and beam failure”) . For claim 9 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE, wherein the predicted indication is provided in a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) that provides a radio access network (RAN)-visible predicted quality of experience value ( Kim: paragraph 7 “when UE experiences beam failure, UE may initiate a random access procedure or send a BFR MAC CE for beam failure recovery”) . For claim 10 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE wherein the determining is based at least in part on an output of an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine-learning (ML) model at the UE ( Kim: paragraphs 138-139 “the application of AI/ML to wireless communications has been thus far limited to implementation-based approaches, both, at the network and the UE sides”) . For claim 11 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the UE of claim 10, wherein, to receive the configuration information, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the network entity, an AI or ML model configuration for prediction of radio-based quality-of-experience (QoE) degradation ( Kim: paragraphs 138-139 “the application of AI/ML to wireless communications has been thus far limited to implementation-based approaches, both, at the network and the UE sides” and paragraph 7 “when UE experiences beam failure, UE may initiate a random access procedure or send a BFR MAC CE for beam failure recovery”) . For claim 12 Kim in view of Ryden teaches a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (as discussed in claim 1) , comprising: receiving configuration information for a radio link, wherein the configuration information enables UE prediction of radio link failure events that will impact a data rate, a spectrum efficiency, or a latency, for communications via the radio link (as discussed in claim 1) ; communicating with a network entity via the radio link (as discussed in claim 1) ; determining, based at least in part on the configuration information, that a predicted data rate, a predicted spectrum efficiency, or a predicted latency, for the communications via the radio link will be below a threshold data rate value, below a threshold spectrum efficiency value, or above a threshold latency value, at a future time instance (as discussed in claim 1) ; and transmitting an indication to the network entity that indicates the predicted data rate will be below the threshold data rate value, the predicted spectrum efficiency will be below the threshold spectrum efficiency value, or the predicted latency will be above the threshold latency value, and the future time instance (as discussed in claim 1) . For claim 13 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the method, wherein transmitting the indication to the network entity further comprises: transmitting a predicted radio link failure indication or an indication that a predicted quality of experience (QoE) associated with the communications will be below a QoE threshold associated with the threshold data rate value, the threshold spectrum efficiency value, or the threshold latency value (as discussed in claim 2) . For claim 14 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: determining a first time associated with the predicted QoE , the predicted radio link failure, or a beam failure, and wherein the future time instance indicates the first time (as discussed in claim 3) . For claim 15 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the method, further comprising: receiving, from the network entity, an update to one or more communication parameters associated with the radio link (as discussed in claim 4) , wherein the one or more communication parameters comprise one or more of a scheduling configuration, a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) configuration , a mobility parameter (as discussed in claim 4) , a bandwidth part (BWP) parameter (as discussed in claim 4) , a carrier aggregation configuration (as discussed in claim 4) , a dual-connectivity configuration (as discussed in claim 4) , an uplink waveform, a beam switch and management configuration, load balancing configuration , or any combination thereof. For claim 16 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the method, further comprising: transmitting a capability message that indicates a UE capability for one or more of predictive data rate, spectrum efficiency , latency, or quality of experience (QoE) determination (as discussed in claim 5) . For claim 17 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the method, wherein the determining comprises: determining that a difference between a first data rate at which data is being removed from a data buffer associated with the communications and a second data rate at which data is being added to the data buffer exceeds a threshold value (as discussed in claim 6) . For claim 18 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising: determining the future time instance associated with one or more of an empty buffer (as discussed in claim 7) or quality of experience (QoE) degradation based at least in part on a quantity of data in the data buffer and the difference between the first data rate and the second data rate . For claim 19 Kim in view of Ryden teaches the method, wherein the future time instance is based at least in part on a timer associated with a radio link or beam failure detection (as discussed in claim 8) . For claim 20 Kim in view of Ryden teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising: means for receiving configuration information for a radio link, wherein the configuration information enables UE prediction of radio link failure events that will impact a data rate, a spectrum efficiency, or a latency, for communications via the radio link (as discussed in claim 1) ; with a network entity via the radio link (as discussed in claim 1) ; means for determining, based at least in part on the configuration information, that a predicted data rate, a predicted spectrum efficiency, or a predicted latency, for the communications via the radio link will be below a threshold data rate value, a threshold spectrum efficiency value, or above a threshold latency value, at a future time instance (as discussed in claim 1) ; and means for transmitting an indication to the network entity that indicates the predicted data rate will be below the threshold data rate value, the predicted spectrum efficiency will be below the threshold spectrum efficiency value, or the predicted latency will be above the threshold latency value, and the future time instance (as discussed in claim 1) . Conclusion 7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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. /MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/652,550 Page 2 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/652,550 Page 3 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/652,550 Page 4 Art Unit: 2415