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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 9, 13, 14, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LYU et al PG PUB 2025/0344224.
Re Claims 9, 24, LYU et al teaches performing sidelink communication based on a configuration of a network device [0135] wherein a first node (a UE comprising a memory and processor) receiving from the network device (transmitting identifying) a sidelink configuration via RRC signaling [0177] indicating a plurality of candidate (RSRP) thresholds [0268].
Re Claims 13, 29, LYU et al teaches in figure 3, receiving from a plurality of UEs 321, 322, a plurality of RSRP measurements, identifying at least one or more RSRP value based on a coverage (at least cell edge RSRP value) for 332, 334, 342, 344 etc [0123 0125].
Re Claim 14, LYU et al teaches identifying the at least one cell edge RSRP value is based on at least one mobility event.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 15-19, 22-23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYU et al PG PUB 2025/0344224 in view of HWANG et al PG PUB 2026/0206012.
Re Claims 1, 15, LYU et al teaches performing sidelink communication based on a configuration of a network device [0135] wherein a first node (a UE comprising a memory and processor) receiving from the network device a sidelink configuration indicating a plurality of candidate (RSRP) thresholds [0268]; the first node (the UE) selects a target RSRP (an RSRP value); further teaches in figure 3, based on the selected target RSRP satisfying the threshold, transmitting a SSB [0123 0124]. LYU et al fails to explicitly teach the selected target RSRP is a based at least in part on an output from an AI/ML model.
However, HWANG et al teaches a AI model may increase efficiency and reduce processing delay [0052] wherein the AI algorithm can be applied to the device/server [0258] supporting sidelink communication. HWANG et al further teaches a UE determines whether to transmits S-SSB to another UE based on a value of S-SSB RSRP [0203] wherein the S-SSB RSRP is calculated based on a minimum values and maximum value of the RSRP measurement values [0204]. By combining the teachings, an AL/ML model can be deployed at the first node (the UE) of LYU et al in determining the set of candidate RSRP values to increase efficiency and reduce processing delay. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the first node in LYU et al with the AL/ML model to output the set of candidate RSRP values to increase efficiency and reduce processing delay. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 3, 16, 17, HWANG et al teaches minimum and maximum values to defined a range for the threshold.
Re Claims 4, 5,18, 19, HWANG et al teaches the sidelink configuration indicates a set of allowed RSRP values which are reliable.
Re Claim 6, HWANG et al teaches RSRP measurement serving cell can be inputted to the AI/ML model.
Re Claims 10, 25, HWANG et al teaches the set of candidate RSRP values according to a minimum and maximum values that defines a range for the threshold.
Re Claim 11, 12, 22, 23, LYU et al teaches the RRC signaling/SIB for indicating the sidelink configuration [0177].
Claims 7-8, 20-21, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYU et al PG PUB 2025/0344224 in view of HWANG et al PG PUB 2026/0206012 as applied to Claim1 above and further in view of ASHRAF et al PG PUB 2024/0057022.
Re Claims 7, 8, 28, LYU et al in view of HWANG et al fails to explicitly teach “transmit, to the network node, an indication of the selected RSRP value.”. ASHRAF et al teaches the UE transmitting to the network node an indication of the RSRP values to determine the accuracy of the AL/ML model [0061 0065]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to test the accuracy of the AL/ML model by transmitting the indication of the selected RSRP value to the network node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 20, 21, 26, 27, ASHRAF et al teaches the AL/ML model is trained based on collected data from the UE and network node.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYU et al PG PUB 2025/0344224.
Re Claim 30, LYU et al teaches the first node receiving the configuration of set of target candidate of RSRP value via RRC signaling but fails to explicitly teach a OAM entity. Examiner takes notice that the RRC signaling can be used by the OAM entity for transmitting the configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have deployed the OAM entity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights