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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 5/18/2026, with respect to claim objections and 35 U.S.C. §112 claim rejections of claims 21-36 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding objections and 35 U.S.C. §112 claim rejections of claims 21-36 have been withdrawn.
However, applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A1) Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 21 and 29 on page 5 include “Lee [US 2018/0317198 A1] does not teach the currently claimed RRC-signaled plurality of Y time slots”, and [Lee’s disclosure] “is not a disclosure of first RRC signaling including information elements used for determining a plurality of Y time slots, where each of the plurality of Y time slots is associated with a PDCCH common search space reserved for reception of DCI configured to schedule paging-related information”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A1) Initially, applicant’s arguments are merely a statement that Lee’s disclosure “is not a disclosure of first RRC signaling including information elements used for determining a plurality of Y time slots, where each of the plurality of Y time slots is associated with a PDCCH common search space reserved for reception of DCI configured to schedule paging-related information”, which is considered arguments without evidence (see MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence, I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY, Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.")). Applicant has not pointed to any cited portion of Lee, has not identified any error in mapping of cited portions of Lee and the claims, and has generalized Lee’s disclosure with a generalized statement that Lee does not disclose claimed features. The examiner asserts as shown in the rejection of claim 21 on pages 10-12 in the OA of 2/18/2026, Lee teaches receiving, from a base station, first radio resource control (RRC) signaling including one or more information elements that are used for determining a plurality of Y time slots (configuration from base station (BS) via radio resource control (RRC) signaling; para. 171, subframes [Y time slots] determined by parameters specified by network and being a time period; para. [69-72, 206]), wherein each of the plurality of Y time slots is associated with a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) Common Search Space (CSS) that is reserved for reception of Downlink Control Information (DCI) that is configured to schedule paging-related information (monitor Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) for Downlink Control Information (DCI); para. 68, DCI includes scheduling for paging message; para. 90, DCI in common search space (CSS); para. 134, monitor PDCCH based on subframe; para. 206). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
A2) Applicant’s further argues in relation to claims 21 and 29 on pages 5-6 that “Lee does not teach the currently claimed Y-slot / candidate-slot / selected-slot hierarchy”, argues “The present specification expressly discloses” certain features and asserts the certain features contrast with Lee’s “direct PF/PO determination from the WTRU ID and paging parameters”, and further argues “Lee does not disclose first determining a plurality of Y time slots, then determining candidate time slots among the plurality of Y time slots, and then selecting selected time slots from among the candidate time slots. That layered architecture remains absent from Lee”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A2) As best understood, applicant’s argument regarding “hierarchy” appears to rely on particular steps and/or sequence, and/or some type of explicit description that conveys {“Y-slot” contains “candidate-slot”, “candidate-slot” contains “selected-slot”; or “selected-slot” is within “candidate-slot”, “candidate-slot” is within “Y-slot”}. However, Lee in cited para. 69-70 explicitly discloses “The paging frame (PF) and subframe within that PF, for example, the paging occasion (PO)” and “there may be multiple PFs per paging cycle and multiple POs within a PF” [emphasis added] analogous to the “hierarchy” argued by applicant. Further, cited Fig. 2 along with cited para. 85 [e.g. PH including PF and PW, PF and PW including PO] also discloses a “hierarchy” as argued. Accordingly, inasmuch as applicant’s argument rely on explicit / express disclosure of a sequence of steps, language of Lee (“within”, “per”), if not inherently indicating a sequence, at least suggests / makes obvious a sequence, and the rejection is a 35 USC § 103 obvious type rejection (see MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [emphasis added]). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
A3) Applicant further argues in relation to claims 21 and 29 on page 6 that Murray [US 2020/0404617 A1] does not cure Lee’s asserted deficiencies. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A3) In light of A1) and A2), Lee teaches the argued limitations and Murray is not cited to teach the argued limitations. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
A4) Applicant further argues in relation to claims 21 and 29 on pages 6-7 that “the Examiner's rationale for combining Lee and Murray remains too generic”, and “the rejection still does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Lee's identity-based PF/PO scheme to arrive at the presently claimed sequence of RRC-determined Y time slots, candidate time slots within the Y time slots, and selected time slots chosen from the candidate time slots”
Regarding A4) The examiner notes MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE [emphasis added], The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant [emphasis added]. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
B1) Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 22 and 30 on page 7 includes “Claims 22 and 30 add a further timing-window architecture that Lee does not teach”, “these claims require that the plurality of Y time slots belong to a target time window, that the target time window is one of K1 first-type time windows that occur periodically, that the UE ID is used to determine the target time window from among the K1 first-type time windows, and that the first RRC signaling indicates the plurality of Y time slots within the target time window”, and “Lee discloses periodic paging-related timing constructs, but not the specific target-window-plus-signaled-Y-slots relationship now recited”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding B1) Initially, applicant’s arguments are merely a statement that “Claims 22 and 30 add a further timing-window architecture that Lee does not teach”, and “Lee discloses periodic paging-related timing constructs, but not the specific target-window-plus-signaled-Y-slots relationship now recited” which is considered arguments without evidence (see MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence, I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY, Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.")). Applicant has not pointed to any cited portion of Lee, has not identified any error in mapping of cited portions of Lee and the claims, and has generalized Lee’s disclosure with a generalized statement that Lee does not disclose claimed features. The examiner asserts as shown in the rejection of claim 22 on page 13, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of Y time slots belong to a target time window (PF including subframes; para. 82 and Fig. 2, paging window (PW) including subframes, paging hyper frame (PH) including subframes; para. [87, 139] and Fig. 2), the target time window being one of K1 first-type time windows that occur periodically (PF/PW/PH/discontinuous reception (DRX)/enhanced DRX (eDRX) occurring periodically; Fig. 2), wherein the periodicity of the K1 first-type time windows is predefined or configured (PH determined based on function of discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle; para. 87 and Fig. 2); wherein the identifier associated with the UE comprises a UE ID (WTRU ID being identifier of WTRU; para. 69), and the UE ID is used to determine the target time window from among the K1 first-type time windows (PH based on WTRU ID; para. 87, PH within eDRX; Fig. 2, PF based on WTRU ID; para. 69, PF within DRX, PF within PH; Fig. 2); and wherein the target time window includes time slots other than the plurality of Y time slots, and the first RRC signaling indicates the plurality of Y time slots within the target time window (configuration from BS via RRC signaling; para. 171, subframes [Y time slots] determined by parameters specified by network; para. [69-72, 206], PF includes PO [a Y time slot] among paging subframes [more than Y time slots]; para. 82), further notes the rejection is a 35 USC § 103 obvious type rejection (see MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [emphasis added]), and with regards to “target-window-plus-signaled-Y-slots”, cited para. 170 discusses configuration regarding when to monitor paging, and configuration of PH, PF, and PO, while cited para. 171 indicates the configuration is provided via RRC signaling. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
B2) Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 23 and 31 on pages 7-8 includes “These claims require second RRC signaling including information elements used to determine K2 second-type time windows, where the K1 first-type time windows are evenly distributed over the K2 second-type time windows and any two second-type time windows of the K2 second-type time windows are orthogonal”, “Lee's DRX/eDRX disclosures do not teach second RRC signaling used to determine K2 second-type time windows having the recited even-distribution and orthogonality relationship”, and “they merely specify that the first and second RRC signaling are the same RRC signaling”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding B2) Initially, applicant’s arguments are merely a statement that Lee’s disclosure “do not teach second RRC signaling used to determine K2 second-type time windows having the recited even-distribution and orthogonality relationship” because “they merely specify that the first and second RRC signaling are the same RRC signaling”, which is considered arguments without evidence (see MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence, I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY, Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.")). Applicant has not pointed to any cited portion of Lee, has not identified any error in mapping of cited portions of Lee and the claims, and has generalized Lee’s disclosure with a generalized statement that Lee does not disclose claimed features. The examiner asserts as shown in the rejection of claim 23 on pages 13-14, Lee teaches receiving, from the base station, second RRC signaling including one or more information elements that are used to determine K2 second-type time windows (parameters include discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle and extended DRX (eDRX) cycle; para. [147, 171]); wherein the K1 first-type time windows are evenly distributed over the K2 second-type time windows (DRX/eDRX includes PH/PF/PW; Fig. 2, PF according to DRX cycle, PH based on eDRX cycle; Fig. 2), and wherein any two second-type time windows are orthogonal (single DRX per DRX cycle, single eDRX per eDRX cycle; Fig. 2) where “cycle” and “per cycle” at least suggests “evenly distributed” and “orthogonal” which are not particularly / further described or defined in the specification, nor are examples provided. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
B3) Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 27 and 35 on page 8 includes “Jung [US 2019/0104498 A1] does not teach the recited "different antenna port groups."”, and “Jung teaches that a paging occasion may include multiple time slots to allow paging using a different downlink TX beam in each time slot, and further teaches that each SS block may be associated with one downlink TX antenna port or downlink TX beam ... is not the same as transmitting paging-related radio signals in any two selected time slots via different antenna port groups” and “one antenna port or one beam does not disclose or suggest different antenna port groups, and the rejection improperly collapses distinct concepts (i.e., antenna port, beam, and antenna port group) into one another”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding B2) Initially, applicant’s arguments has generalized Jung’s disclosure with “Jung teaches that a paging occasion may include multiple time slots to allow paging using a different downlink TX beam in each time slot, and further teaches that each SS block may be associated with one downlink TX antenna port or downlink TX beam”, while the rejection of the claim includes wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different antenna port groups (first PO [selected time slot] includes Control Resource Sets (CORESETs) for paging DCI, second PO includes CORESETs for paging DCI; para. 63, where CORESET for paging DCI are QCL associated with SS/PBCH Blocks and associated with antenna port/beam [antenna port group]; para. 61, where each SS block is associated with one TX antenna port/beam [different SS block/antenna port group]; para. 56) [emphasis added] which reasonably suggests the claimed limitation. Further, in looking to the specification, para. 86 describes “In one embodiment, any two slots of the X1 slots are transmitted via different antenna port groups, and the antenna port group includes a positive integer number of antenna ports”, and, as further support of the examiner’s stance, the examiner notes Lee et al. (US 2018/0288645 A1) which describes in para. 37 “The term “beam” may be represented by an antenna, an antenna port, an antenna element, a group of antennas, a group of antenna ports, or a group of antenna elements. For example, a first beam may be represented as a first antenna port or a first group of antenna ports.” [emphasis added] and thus, supports the examiner’s assertion the Jung reasonably suggests the claimed limitation (see MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [emphasis added]). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
Further arguments rely on the above arguments and thus, applicant’s arguments are correspondingly non-persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28-34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0317198 A1) hereinafter Lee in view of Murray et al. (US 2020/0404617 A1, made of record in the OA of 7/20/2022, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/453,880, filed 2/2/2017, No. 62/501,547, filed 5/04/2017, and No. 62/564,476, filed 9/28/2017) hereinafter Murray.
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches a method performed by a User Equipment (UE) for wireless communication (wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) 102; Figs. 1A-1B), the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, first radio resource control (RRC) signaling including one or more information elements that are used for determining a plurality of Y time slots (configuration from base station (BS) via radio resource control (RRC) signaling; para. 171, subframes [Y time slots] determined by parameters specified by network and being a time period; para. [69-72, 206]), wherein each of the plurality of Y time slots is associated with a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) Common Search Space (CSS) that is reserved for reception of Downlink Control Information (DCI) that is configured to schedule paging-related information (monitor Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) for Downlink Control Information (DCI); para. 68, DCI includes scheduling for paging message; para. 90, DCI in common search space (CSS); para. 134, monitor PDCCH based on subframe; para. 206); determining, based on an identifier associated with the UE, a plurality of candidate time slots among the plurality of Y time slots (paging frame (PF) [subset] determined based on WTRU ID; para. 69-70, paging occasions (PO) determined from among PF [candidate] of subframes; para. 82); and selecting, based on the identifier and a predefined mapping rule, a plurality of selected time slots from among the candidate time slots (multiple POs [selected time slots] determined based on WTRU ID, POs [selected time slots] per PF [candidate]; para. 69-70; para. 69-70, PO determined based on rules; para. [87, 170]), wherein each of the selected time slots is one of the plurality of Y time slots and is a paging occasion (PO [selected time slots / paging occasion] within PF of subframes [Y time slots]; para. [70, 82]); and monitoring, in each of the selected time slots (monitor PO; para. 69-70 and Fig. 2), the PDCCH CSS for the DCI (monitor PDCCH for DCI; para. 68, DCI in CSS; para. 134); wherein the DCI includes at least one of: (i) scheduling information for a paging record (DCI includes paging records/message; para. [114, 130, 187], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); (ii) an indication of a change in system information (DCI includes monitor for system information change; para. 73); (iii) an indication associated with receiving information from a warning system (DCI includes monitor for earthquake and tsunami warning system (ETWS); para. 73); and (iv) an indication associated with receiving information from a commercial mobile alert system (DCI includes monitor for commercial mobile alert service (CMAS); para. 73).
While Lee discloses subframes, time and frequency resources, LTE, narrow band LTE, narrow band Internet of Things (IoT), and 10 ms frames, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of Y time slots has a specified subcarrier spacing and Cyclic Prefix length.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murray teaches wherein each of the plurality of Y time slots has a specified subcarrier spacing (PO consisting of slots; para. [213, 261], subcarrier spacing (SCS) configured; para. [231, 261, 307, 309, 381, 386, 388, 499]) and Cyclic Prefix length (guard configurable in slot; para. 342, cyclic prefix-OFDM (CP-OFDM); Figs. [39A.2-39A.3, 39B2-39B.3, 40A.2, 40C.2-40C.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Murray to the system of Lee, where Lee’s coverage enhancement (para. 61-62) along with and Murray’s flexible paging burst (para. [14, 224]) improves resource efficiency by improving paging reliability with improved coverage.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
Lee further teaches wherein the plurality of Y time slots belong to a target time window (PF including subframes; para. 82 and Fig. 2, paging window (PW) including subframes, paging hyper frame (PH) including subframes; para. [87, 139] and Fig. 2), the target time window being one of K1 first-type time windows that occur periodically (PF/PW/PH/discontinuous reception (DRX)/enhanced DRX (eDRX) occurring periodically; Fig. 2), wherein the periodicity of the K1 first-type time windows is predefined or configured (PH determined based on function of discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle; para. 87 and Fig. 2); wherein the identifier associated with the UE comprises a UE ID (WTRU ID being identifier of WTRU; para. 69), and the UE ID is used to determine the target time window from among the K1 first-type time windows (PH based on WTRU ID; para. 87, PH within eDRX; Fig. 2, PF based on WTRU ID; para. 69, PF within DRX, PF within PH; Fig. 2); and wherein the target time window includes time slots other than the plurality of Y time slots, and the first RRC signaling indicates the plurality of Y time slots within the target time window (configuration from BS via RRC signaling; para. 171, subframes [Y time slots] determined by parameters specified by network; para. [69-72, 206], PF includes PO [a Y time slot] among paging subframes [other than Y time slots]; para. 82).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 22.
Lee further teaches receiving, from the base station, second RRC signaling including one or more information elements that are used to determine K2 second-type time windows (parameters include discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle and extended DRX (eDRX) cycle; para. [147, 171]); wherein the K1 first-type time windows are evenly distributed over the K2 second-type time windows (DRX/eDRX includes PH/PF/PW; Fig. 2, PF according to DRX cycle, PH based on eDRX cycle; Fig. 2), and wherein any two second-type time windows of the K2 second-type time windows are orthogonal (single DRX per DRX cycle, single eDRX per eDRX cycle; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 23.
Lee further teaches wherein the first RRC signaling and the second RRC signaling are the same RRC signaling (parameters for paging includes DRX cycle; para. 147, configuration via RRC signaling; para. 171).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
Lee further teaches receiving, from the base station, a paging record carried on a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) (WTRU receives PDSCH [from BS] carrying paging record; para. [34, 114]); wherein the paging record carries paging-related information (paging record includes paging message and paging information; para. 187), and the DCI indicates time-frequency resources occupied by the PDSCH (PDSCH received [time-frequency resources], decoded, and demodulated based on DCI; para. [08, 177]) that carries the paging record and a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) associated with the paging record (PDSCH [from BS] carrying paging record; para. [34, 114], PDSCH received, decoded, and demodulated [Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS)] based on DCI; para. [08, 177]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
While Lee discloses SS/PBCH transmission, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are configured to be Quasi Co-Located (QCL) with different Synchronization Signal/Physical Broadcast Channel (SS/PBCH) blocks.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murray further teaches wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are configured to be Quasi Co-Located (QCL) with different Synchronization Signal/Physical Broadcast Channel (SS/PBCH) blocks (Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH) transmitted during Synchronization Signal (SS) blocks (SSB); para. 286, PO [selected time slot] time division multiplexed (TDMed) [any two] with SSB associated with Quasi Co-Located (QCL) property; para. 336 and Figs. 41-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Murray to the modified system of Lee and Murray, where Lee and Murray’s modified system along with and Murray’s flexible paging burst (para. [14, 224]) improves resource efficiency by improving paging reliability with improved coverage.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different analog beams.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murray further teaches wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different analog beams (analog beamforming and beam sweeping [different beams] for coverage; para. 210 and Fig. 4, PO use of multiple beams over different time/frequency resources [different beams] for sweeping; para. [383-384, 386], PO [paging-related signal / selected time slot] associated with the beam for sweeping [not shared / different]; para. 323).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Murray to the modified system of Lee and Murray, where Lee and Murray’s modified system along with and Murray’s flexible paging burst (para. [14, 224]) improves resource efficiency by improving paging reliability with improved coverage.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21, including UE (wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs) 102; para. [21, 35] and Figs. 1A-1B: Lee); transmitter (transceiver 120; para. 36 and Fig. 1B: Lee); receiver (transceiver 120; para. 36 and Fig. 1B: Lee); a memory storing instructions (memory 130/132 including program/software; para. [32, 215] and Fig. 1B); processor coupled to a memory and configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (processor 118 executing program/software; para. [33, 215] and Fig. 1B: Lee); downlink time slot (paging occasions (PO) [selected time slots / paging occasion] within paging frame (PF) [downlink] of subframes [Y time slots]; para. [70, 82], WTRU monitors only one PO; para. 87 and Fig. 2 showing PF, PW: Lee).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 22.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 23.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 24.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 25.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 26.
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 28.
Claim(s) 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Murray, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2019/0104498 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/567,125, filed 10/02/2017) hereinafter Jung.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
While the combination of Lee and Murray discloses analog beamforming with subarray, the combination of Lee and Murray does not explicitly disclose wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different antenna port groups.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jung teaches wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different antenna port groups (first PO [selected time slot] includes Control Resource Sets (CORESETs) for paging DCI, second PO includes CORESETs for paging DCI; para. 63, where CORESET for paging DCI are QCL associated with SS/PBCH Blocks and associated with antenna port/beam [antenna port group]; para. 61, where each SS block is associated with one TX antenna port/beam [different SS block/antenna port group]; para. 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Jun to the modified system of Lee and Murray, where Lee and Murray’s modified system along with and Jung’s determination of flexile resource allocation (para. 04 and para. 64) improves resource efficiency by improving paging reliability with improved coverage.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugirtharaj et al. (US 2019/0124517 A1) discloses a network node, method and computer program product for scheduling of paging messages with respect to discovery signal transmissions.
Shrestha et al. (US 2020/0229095 A1) discloses wake up signaling in wireless telecommunication networks.
Kim et al. (US 2023/0037980 A1) discloses a method and device for performing paging in mobile communication system.
Zhang et al. (US 2018/0249440 A1) discloses paging for low complexity user equipment and/or user equipment in coverage enhancement mode.
Liu et al. (US 2018/0242277 A1) discloses paging user equipments on a shared communication medium.
US Provisional Application No. 62/564,476 (Murray), made of record in the OA of 2/18/2026, US Provisional Application Nos. 62/453,880 and 62/501,547 (Murray), made of record in the OA of 9/11/2025, and US Provisional Application No. 62/567,125 (Jung), made of record in the OA of 7/21/2023, are not included in the instant OA.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights