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 § 112 – Second Paragraph
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.
Claims 10-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 10:
At line 7, “the UE capability” lacks of antecedent basis.
For claim 11:
At line 6, “the UE” lacks of antecedent basis.
For claim 15:
At line 7, “the UE capability” lacks of antecedent basis.
For claims 11-14 and 16-20, these claims are also rejected as they depend upon a rejected claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0056285).
Regarding claim 1, Guan teaches a method for reporting a user equipment (UE) capability (Fig. 3), comprising:
reporting the UE capability to a network device in a case that a reporting condition is satisfied (at 310, UE reports capabilities to ND 210 based on conditions [Paragraphs 8, 216, 272, 274]).
Regarding claim 2, Guan further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein reporting the UE capability to the network device in the case that the reporting condition is satisfied comprises one of:
reporting the UE capability to the network device in a case that the UE capability satisfies a first condition ([Paragraphs 8, 216, 272, 274]); or
reporting the UE capability to the network device in a case that a variation of a current reporting environment relative to a reporting environment of a previous reporting satisfies a second condition (the capabilities are reported based on change of previous reports [Paragraphs 118, 178-179, 183, 217]).
Regarding claim 3, Guan further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein
the UE capability comprises at least one capability ([Paragraphs 5-8]); and
reporting the UE capability to the network device in the case that the UE capability satisfies the first condition comprises:
reporting the UE capability to the network device in a case that at least one of the at least one capability of the UE capability satisfies the first condition ([Paragraphs 5-8]);
wherein the at least one capability is predefined, or preconfigured, or configured by the network device ([Paragraphs 159, 161, 174]).
Regarding claim 4, Guan further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the UE capability satisfying the first condition comprises at least one of: the UE capability being less than a first threshold; the UE capability being greater than a second threshold; or a variation of the UE capability relative to a previously reported UE capability being greater than a third threshold (since the capabilities are being compared to previous values, said values correspond to thresholds [Paragraphs 118, 178-179, 183, 217]).
Regarding claim 5, Guan further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the first condition is predefined; the first condition is preconfigured; or the first condition is configured by the network device; or the second condition is predefined; the second condition is preconfigured; or the second condition is configured by a network device ([Paragraphs 159, 161, 174]).
Regarding claim 7, Guan further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein reporting the UE capability to the network device in the case that the reporting condition is satisfied comprises: reporting the UE capability to the network device in a reporting mode configured by the network device ([Paragraphs 80, 139]); wherein the reporting mode comprises: periodic reporting; semi-persistent reporting; or aperiodic reporting ([Paragraphs 80, 139]).
Regarding claim 8, Guan further teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein
the reporting mode comprises the semi-persistent reporting ([Paragraph 80]);
reporting the UE capability to the network device based on the reporting mode configured by the network device comprises:
starting/activating reporting the UE capability based on a semi-persistent period in a case that activation signaling is received from the network device ([Paragraphs 253, 264]); and
the method further comprises:
stopping/deactivating reporting the UE capability based on the semi-persistent period in a case that deactivation signaling is received from the network device ([Paragraphs 183, 213, 249-250]).
Regarding claim 9, Guan further teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein
the reporting manner comprises the aperiodic reporting ([Paragraph 80]); and
reporting the UE capability to the network device based on the reporting mode configured by the network device comprises:
reporting the UE capability to the network device in a case that a trigger signaling is received from the network device ([Paragraphs 139, 213]).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Guan further teaches the terminal according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to load and execute the one or more executable instructions, to cause the terminal to further perform at least one of: receiving configuration information from the network device, wherein the configuration information is for configuring a reporting resource of the UE capability; reporting an AI model index supported by the UE; or switching to an AI model corresponding to the UE capability ([Paragraphs 45-46, 48, 63-64]).
Regarding claim 12, Guan further teaches the terminal according to claim 10, wherein the UE capability comprises at least one of: whether to support an artificial intelligence (AI) function; an AI function-based use case; a supported AI category level; a computing capability; a storage capability; a communication capability; or a battery level ([Paragraphs 35, 151]).
Regarding claim 13, Guan further teaches the terminal according to claim 12, wherein there is at least one of: at least one capability of the UE capability is explicitly indicated; at least one capability of the UE capability is separately indicated using a capability level; or at least two capabilities of the UE capability are indicated in combination using one capability level (capabilities being indicated in different ways [Paragraphs 121, 126, 140]); wherein a classification range of the capability level is configured by a network device, or a classification range of the capability level is defined by a communication protocol ([Paragraphs 34, 81]).
Regarding claim 14, Guan further teaches the terminal according to claim 10, wherein the UE capability is carried in at least one of: a radio resource control (RRC) message; a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) message; or uplink control information (UCI) ([Paragraphs 85, 92]).
Regarding claims 15-17, 19-20, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8-9.
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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0056285) in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0275652).
Regarding claim 6, Guan teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, Guan does not explicitly mention: wherein the variation of the current reporting environment relative to the reporting environment of the previous reporting satisfying the second condition comprises: a duration between a current time and a time of the previous reporting being greater than a fourth threshold; and a distance between a current position and a position of the previous reporting being greater than a fifth threshold.
Wu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the variation of the current reporting environment relative to the reporting environment of the previous reporting satisfying the second condition comprises: a duration between a current time and a time of the previous reporting being greater than a fourth threshold (for the disclosed system, UE capabilities are being informed based on time comparisons to thresholds during present and previous times [Paragraphs 30-31, 41-44, 69-70, 95-97]); and a distance between a current position and a position of the previous reporting being greater than a fifth threshold (also, the comparisons are made to distances from current and previous reporting [Paragraphs 30-31, 41-44, 69-70, 95-97]).
Therefore, 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 communication system (as taught by Guan) by comparing distances and times (as taught by Wu) for the purpose of properly transmitting UE capabilities (Wu - Paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
August 3, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights