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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Claims 29, 32, 34, and 37 have been amended.
Claims 39-45 are canceled.
Claims 46-54 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the amended limitation “an indication of an absolute time point until which the terminal device is expected to be reachable” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the arguments on the amended feature has been addressed in the instant Office Action with previously identified prior art, Landais et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180368202, hereinafter “Landais”), by mapping the relevant teachings for more clarification thereof that read on said added feature are moot.
As explicitly admitted in the Applicant’s own specification at paragraph [0090], the claimed “absolute time point” is technically defined and determined as “current time plus a length of the time period,” where the current time refers to “the time point at which the status of the terminal device is detected as having changed from unreachable to reachable.”
Turning to the cited reference, Landais explicitly discloses at paragraph [0106] that “[w]hen the UE becomes reachable [i.e., the current time], the MME sends a notification that the UE is available which includes an indication instructing the SCEF or SCS/AS to prioritize the retransmission of Non-IP data sent to this UE. The indication may take the form of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection [i.e., a length of the time period] with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds).”
Because Landais transmits the duration/time window at the exact moment the UE becomes reachable, the receiving core network entity (e.g., SCEF or SCS/AS) inherently and immediately derives the precise “absolute time point” by adding the received duration to the current timestamp of the notification message, entirely consistent with the methodology defined in paragraph [0090] of the present application.
To the extent that Landais transmits a relative time duration rather than a pre-calculated absolute timestamp from the MME/AMF, it would have been a matter of routine design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention to select whether the absolute expiration time [e.g., 30 seconds of para [0090] in Landais] is calculated at the transmitting node (MME/AMF) or at the receiving node (SCS/AS). Shifting the burden of addition from the receiver to the transmitter is a mere predicable variation in protocol design that yields no unexpected results.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0090] notes that “It is also possible that the maximum availability time may be represented in any other suitable form,” thereby acknowledging that a relative time window serves as a functional equivalent to the claimed absolute time point.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments overall are deemed unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 29, 31-38, and 46-54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 23.502 V16.2.0 (2019-09) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Procedures for the 5G System; Stage 2 (Release 16) (hereinafter “TS 23.502”) in view of Landais et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2018/0368202, hereinafter “Landais”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to TS 23.502 unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims 29, 34, and 37:
Regarding Claim 29, A method performed by a network node implementing an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity (Fig. 4.2.5.3-1: UE Activity Procedure, AMF), the method comprising:
detecting a status of a terminal device changing from unreachable to reachable (Para [4.2.5.3 UE Activity Notification procedure], page 68: 1a. For a UE in CM-IDLE, the AMF receives (N1) NAS signalling implying UE reachability, e.g. a Registration Request or Service Request message from the UE, the AMF performs step 2;); and
sending, to a first entity, a report indicating that the terminal device is reachable, (Para [4.2.5.3 UE Activity Notification procedure], page 68: 2. If the AMF has an MM context for the UE and the URRP-AMF information flag associated with the subscribing NF is set to report once that the UE is reachable, the AMF initiates the Namf_EventExposure_Notify service operation (SUPI, UE-Reachable) message to the UDM (interpreted as “a first entity”) or directly to the NF (if direct notification is previously indicated to AMF in step 2 in clause 4.2.5.2). The AMF clears the corresponding URRP-AMF information for the UE. If the UE was in CM-IDLE and the UE's reachability state changes from reachable to unreachable, the AMF initiates the Namf_EventExposure_Notify service operation (SUPI, UE-UnReachable) (interpreted as “sending, to a first entity, a report indicating that the terminal device is reachable”)(see Figure 4.2.5.3-1: UE Activity Procedure). Figure 4.2.5.3-1 is reproduced herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Figure 4.2.5.3-1: UE Activity Procedure)
(The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Landais) and wherein the first entity is one of a unified data management (UDM) entity (Para [4.2.5.3 UE Activity Notification procedure], page 68: the AMF initiates the Namf_EventExposure_Notify service operation (SUPI, UE-Reachable) message to the UDM), a network exposure function (NEF) entity, an application function (AF) entity, a short message service (SMS) entity, a service capability server (SCS) entity, an application server (AS) entity, a session management function (SMF) entity, and a user plane function (UPF) entity,
(The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of LANDAIS).
It is noted that while disclosing the power saving configuration of the UE to enable MICO mode, TS 23.502 does not specifically teach about the limitation of “wherein the report contain an indication of an absolute time point until which the terminal device is expected to be reachable” and “wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices.”
It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Landais.
Landais teaches wherein the report contain an indication of an absolute time point until which the terminal device is expected to be reachable (para [0106] of Landais: When the UE becomes reachable, the MME sends a notification that the UE is available which includes an indication instructing the SCEF or SCS/AS to prioritize the retransmission of Non-IP data sent to this UE. The indication may take the form of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds)). Examiner’s note: As explicitly admitted in the Applicant’s own specification at paragraph [0090], the claimed “absolute time point” is technically defined and determined as “current time plus a length of the time period,” where the current time refers to “the time point at which the status of the terminal device is detected as having changed from unreachable to reachable.” Landais explicitly discloses at paragraph [0106] that “[w]hen the UE becomes reachable [i.e., the current time], the MME sends a notification … which includes an indication … of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection [i.e., a length of the time period] with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds).” Because Landais transmits the duration/time window at the exact moment the UE becomes reachable, the receiving core network entity (e.g., SCEF or SCS/AS) inherently and immediately derives the precise “absolute time point” by adding the received duration to the current timestamp of the notification message, entirely consistent with the methodology defined in paragraph [0090] of the present application. To the extent that Landais transmits a relative time duration rather than a pre-calculated absolute timestamp from the MME/AMF, it would have been a matter of routine design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention to select whether the absolute expiration time [e.g., 30 seconds of para [0090] in Landais] is calculated at the transmitting node (MME/AMF) or at the receiving node (SCS/AS). Shifting the burden of addition from the receiver to the transmitter is a mere predicable variation in protocol design that yields no unexpected results. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0090] notes that “It is also possible that the maximum availability time may be represented in any other suitable form,” thereby acknowledging that a relative time window serves as a functional equivalent to the claimed absolute time point.
Landais teaches the wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices (para [0106] of Landais: When the UE becomes reachable, the MME sends a notification that the UE is available which includes an indication instructing the SCEF or SCS/AS to prioritize the retransmission of Non-IP data sent to this UE. The indication may take the form of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds).). Examiner’s comments: The Examiner notes that the above claimed limitation “wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices” is accorded no patentable weight. Pursuant to MPEP § 2111.02, this clause constitutes a mere statement of intended use, purpose, or downstream functional effect. It does not require the claimed network node (AMF) to perform any affirmative, active method step beyond the mere transmission of the report. Because the Landais’s method is fully capable of being used for the recited purpose of prioritization once the time indication is sent, this functional clause fails to patentable distinguish the claim from the cited references.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the UE reachability reporting procedure of TS 23.502 to include the availability time indication as taught by Landais. The combination represents nothing more than the predictable application of a known optimization technique (Landais) to a substantially identical communication framework (3GPP TS 23.502) to achieve the expected result of efficient traffic scheduling.
Regarding Claim 34, TS 23.502 teaches A method performed by a network node implementing a unified data management (UDM) entity (Fig. 4.15.3.2.2-1: UDM) , the method comprising:
receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity, a first report indicating that a terminal device is reachable, (Para [4.2.5.3 UE Activity Notification procedure], page 68; the AMF initiates the Namf_EventExposure_Notify service operation (SUPI, UE-Reachable) message (interpreted as “a first report”) to the UDM)(Para [4.15.4.2 Exposure of Mobility Events from AMF, page 280]; the AMF notifies the UE reachability event to the UDM), (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Landais),
sending, to a third entity, a second report indicating that the terminal device is reachable (Para [4.15.3.2.2 UDM service operations information flow], page 272: 2a. … UDM sends Namf_EventExposure_Subscribe request to the AMF serving that UE. … 4a-4b. … The UDM detects the monitored event occurs and sends the event report (interpreted as “a second report”), by means of Nudm_EventExposure_Notify message, to the associated notification endpoint of the NEF, along with the time stamp.), (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Landais),
wherein the third entity is one of a network exposure function (NEF) entity (Para [4.15.3.2.2 UDM service operations information flow], page 272: 2a. … UDM sends Namf_EventExposure_Subscribe request to the AMF serving that UE. … 4a-4b. … The UDM detects the monitored event occurs and sends the event report (interpreted as “a second report”), by means of Nudm_EventExposure_Notify message, to the associated notification endpoint of the NEF, along with the time stamp.), an application function (AF) entity, a short message service (SMS) entity, a service capability server (SCS) entity, an application server (AS) entity, a session management function (SMF) entity, and a user plane function (UPF) entity; and
(The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Landais)
TS 23.502 fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first report contains an indication of an absolute time point until which the terminal device is expected to be reachable”, “wherein the second report contains the indication of the absolute time point,” and “wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices.”
It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Landais.
Landais teaches wherein the first report contains an indication of an absolute time point until which the terminal device is expected to be reachable” and “wherein the second report contains the indication of the absolute time point,” (para [0106] of Landais: When the UE becomes reachable, the MME sends a notification that the UE is available which includes an indication instructing the SCEF or SCS/AS to prioritize the retransmission of Non-IP data sent to this UE. The indication may take the form of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds)) (para [0123] of Landais: 11. The SCEF notifies the SCS/AS that the UE is available, and includes in this notification the Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE.). Examiner’s note: As explicitly admitted in the Applicant’s own specification at paragraph [0090], the claimed “absolute time point” is technically defined and determined as “current time plus a length of the time period,” where the current time refers to “the time point at which the status of the terminal device is detected as having changed from unreachable to reachable.” Landais explicitly discloses at paragraph [0106] that “[w]hen the UE becomes reachable [i.e., the current time], the MME sends a notification … which includes an indication … of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection [i.e., a length of the time period] with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds).” Because Landais transmits the duration/time window at the exact moment the UE becomes reachable, the receiving core network entity (e.g., SCEF or SCS/AS) inherently and immediately derives the precise “absolute time point” by adding the received duration to the current timestamp of the notification message, entirely consistent with the methodology defined in paragraph [0090] of the present application. To the extent that Landais transmits a relative time duration rather than a pre-calculated absolute timestamp from the MME/AMF, it would have been a matter of routine design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention to select whether the absolute expiration time [e.g., 30 seconds of para [0090] in Landais] is calculated at the transmitting node (MME/AMF) or at the receiving node (SCS/AS). Shifting the burden of addition from the receiver to the transmitter is a mere predicable variation in protocol design that yields no unexpected results. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0090] notes that “It is also possible that the maximum availability time may be represented in any other suitable form,” thereby acknowledging that a relative time window serves as a functional equivalent to the claimed absolute time point.
Landais teaches the wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices (para [0106] of Landais: When the UE becomes reachable, the MME sends a notification that the UE is available which includes an indication instructing the SCEF or SCS/AS to prioritize the retransmission of Non-IP data sent to this UE. The indication may take the form of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds).). Examiner’s comments: The Examiner notes that the above claimed limitation “wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices” is accorded no patentable weight. Pursuant to MPEP § 2111.02, this clause constitutes a mere statement of intended use, purpose, or downstream functional effect. It does not require the claimed network node (AMF) to perform any affirmative, active method step beyond the mere transmission of the report. Because the Landais’s method is fully capable of being used for the recited purpose of prioritization once the time indication is sent, this functional clause fails to patentable distinguish the claim from the cited references.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the UE reachability reporting procedure of TS 23.502 to include the availability time indication as taught by Landais. The combination represents nothing more than the predictable application of a known optimization technique (Landais) to a substantially identical communication framework (3GPP TS 23.502) to achieve the expected result of efficient traffic scheduling.
Regarding Claim 37, TS 23.502 teaches A method performed by a network node implementing a network exposure function (NEF) entity (Fig. 4.15.3.2.3-1: NEF), the method comprising:
receiving, from a unified data management (UDM) entity or an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity, a first report indicating that a terminal device is reachable (Para [4.15.4.2 Exposure of Mobility Events from AMF, page 280]; the AMF notifies the UE reachability event to the UDM)(Para [4.15.3.2.3 NEF service operations information flow], page 275: 6a-6b. The UDM (depending on the Event) detects the event occurs and sends the event report, by means of Nudm_EventExposure_Notify message (interpreted as “a first report”) to the associated notification endpoint of the NEF), (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Landais),
sending, to a service consumer, a second report indicating that the terminal device is reachable (Para [4.15.3.2.3 NEF service operations information flow], page 276: 7. The NEF forwards to the AF (interpreted as “a service consumer”, see para [0040] “the service consumer may be … an AF entity” of the specification of the instant application) the reporting (interpreted as “a second report”) event received by either Nudm_EventExposure_Notify and/or Namf_EventExposure_Notify.), (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Landais)
. (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Landais)
TS 23.502 fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first report contains an indication of an absolute time point until which the terminal device is expected to be reachable”, “wherein the second report contains the indication of the absolute time point”, and “wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices.”
It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Landais.
Landais teaches “wherein the first report contains an indication of an absolute time point until which the terminal device is expected to be reachable” and “wherein the second report contains the indication of the absolute time point,” (para [0106] of Landais: When the UE becomes reachable, the MME sends a notification that the UE is available which includes an indication instructing the SCEF or SCS/AS to prioritize the retransmission of Non-IP data sent to this UE. The indication may take the form of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds)) (para [0123] of Landais: 11. The SCEF notifies the SCS/AS that the UE is available, and includes in this notification the Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE.). Examiner’s note: As explicitly admitted in the Applicant’s own specification at paragraph [0090], the claimed “absolute time point” is technically defined and determined as “current time plus a length of the time period,” where the current time refers to “the time point at which the status of the terminal device is detected as having changed from unreachable to reachable.” Landais explicitly discloses at paragraph [0106] that “[w]hen the UE becomes reachable [i.e., the current time], the MME sends a notification … which includes an indication … of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection [i.e., a length of the time period] with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds).” Because Landais transmits the duration/time window at the exact moment the UE becomes reachable, the receiving core network entity (e.g., SCEF or SCS/AS) inherently and immediately derives the precise “absolute time point” by adding the received duration to the current timestamp of the notification message, entirely consistent with the methodology defined in paragraph [0090] of the present application. To the extent that Landais transmits a relative time duration rather than a pre-calculated absolute timestamp from the MME/AMF, it would have been a matter of routine design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention to select whether the absolute expiration time [e.g., 30 seconds of para [0090] in Landais] is calculated at the transmitting node (MME/AMF) or at the receiving node (SCS/AS). Shifting the burden of addition from the receiver to the transmitter is a mere predicable variation in protocol design that yields no unexpected results. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0090] notes that “It is also possible that the maximum availability time may be represented in any other suitable form,” thereby acknowledging that a relative time window serves as a functional equivalent to the claimed absolute time point.
Landais teaches the wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices (para [0106] of Landais: When the UE becomes reachable, the MME sends a notification that the UE is available which includes an indication instructing the SCEF or SCS/AS to prioritize the retransmission of Non-IP data sent to this UE. The indication may take the form of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds).). Examiner’s comments: The Examiner notes that the above claimed limitation “wherein the indication of the absolute time point is for prioritization of messages or data delivery for a plurality of terminal devices” is accorded no patentable weight. Pursuant to MPEP § 2111.02, this clause constitutes a mere statement of intended use, purpose, or downstream functional effect. It does not require the claimed network node (AMF) to perform any affirmative, active method step beyond the mere transmission of the report. Because the Landais’s method is fully capable of being used for the recited purpose of prioritization once the time indication is sent, this functional clause fails to patentable distinguish the claim from the cited references.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the UE reachability reporting procedure of TS 23.502 to include the availability time indication as taught by Landais. The combination represents nothing more than the predictable application of a known optimization technique (Landais) to a substantially identical communication framework (3GPP TS 23.502) to achieve the expected result of efficient traffic scheduling.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding Claim 31, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 29, further comprising:
TS 23.502 further teaches receiving, from a second entity, a subscription request for event reporting about reachability of the terminal device (Para [4.15.3.2.5 Information flow for downlink data delivery status with SMF buffering], page 279; 2. NEF (interpreted as “a second entity”) sends the Nudm_EventExposure_Subscribe Request to UDM.); and wherein the report is sent based on the subscription request. (Para [4.15.3.2.2 UDM service operations information flow], page 272: 2a. … UDM sends Namf_EventExposure_Subscribe request to the AMF serving that UE. … 4a-4b. … The UDM detects the monitored event occurs and sends the event report (interpreted as “a second report”), by means of Nudm_EventExposure_Notify message, to the associated notification endpoint of the NEF, along with the time stamp.).
Regarding Claim 32, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 29, Landais further teaches wherein the indication of the absolute time point is based on a time period during which the terminal device is to keep reachable after the status of the terminal device changes from unreachable to reachable, and derived as a current time plus a length of the time period (para [0106] of Landais: When the UE becomes reachable, the MME sends a notification that the UE is available which includes an indication instructing the SCEF or SCS/AS to prioritize the retransmission of Non-IP data sent to this UE. The indication may take the form of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds)) (para [0123] of Landais: 11. The SCEF notifies the SCS/AS that the UE is available, and includes in this notification the Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE.). Examiner’s note: As explicitly admitted in the Applicant’s own specification at paragraph [0090], the claimed “absolute time point” is technically defined and determined as “current time plus a length of the time period,” where the current time refers to “the time point at which the status of the terminal device is detected as having changed from unreachable to reachable.” Landais explicitly discloses at paragraph [0106] that “[w]hen the UE becomes reachable [i.e., the current time], the MME sends a notification … which includes an indication … of e.g. a new Maximum-UE-Availability-Time IE which indicates the time window until when the network intends to maintain the signalling connection [i.e., a length of the time period] with the UE after the paging response (e.g. 30 seconds).”
Regarding Claim 33, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 31, TS 23.502 further teaches wherein the second entity is one of a unified data management (UDM) entity, a network exposure function (NEF) entity, a network data analytics function (NWDAF) entity, and a session management function (SMF) entity (Para [4.15.3.2.5, page 279; 2. NEF (interpreted as “the second entity”) sends the Nudm_EventExposure_Subscribe Request to UDM.).
Regarding Claim 35, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 34, further comprising:
TS 23.502 further teaches sending, to the AMF entity, a first subscription request for event reporting about reachability of the terminal device (Para [4.15.3.2.2 UDM service operations information flow], page 272: 2a. … UDM sends Namf_EventExposure_Subscribe request to the AMF serving that UE.), in response to a trigger event indicating that event reporting about reachability of the terminal device is required by the third entity (Para [4.15.3.2.5], page 279; 2. NEF sends the Nudm_EventExposure_Subscribe Request (interpreted as “the trigger event”) to UDM.).
Regarding Claim 36, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 35, wherein the trigger event is at least one of:
TS 23.502 further teaches receiving, from the third entity, a second subscription request for event reporting about reachability of the terminal device (Para [4.15.3.2.5], page 279; 2. NEF sends the Nudm_EventExposure_Subscribe Request (interpreted as “the trigger event is … a second subscription request”) to UDM.).
Regarding Claim 38, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 37, further comprising: TS 23.502 further teaches
receiving, from the service consumer, a first subscription request for event reporting about reachability of the terminal device (Para [4.15.3.2.3], page 274; 1. The AF subscribes to one or several Event(s) … and provides the associated notification endpoint of the AF by sending (to NEF, See Fig. 4.15.3.2.3-1, step 1) Nnef_EventExposure_Subscribe request (interpreted as “a first subscription request”); and
sending, to the UDM entity, a second subscription request for event reporting about reachability of the terminal device (Para [4.15.3.2.3], page 274; 2. The NEF subscribes to received Event(s) … and provides the associated notification endpoint of the NEF to UDM by sending Nudm_EventExposure_Subscribe request. (interpreted as “a second subscription request”).
Regarding Claim 46, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 29, Landais further teaches wherein the indication of the absolute time point is derived based on a power saving configuration of the terminal device (para [0006] of Landais: As recognized by the inventors, and as will be described with more detail later, there is a need to improve the support of Mobile-Terminated (MT) Data service towards a User Equipment UE using extended idle mode DRX (interpreted as “based on a power saving configuration of the terminal device”).).
Regarding Claim 47, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 46, wherein the terminal device is in one of the following modes: TS 23.502 further teaches:
power saving mode (PSM);
extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) mode ; and
mobile-initiated connection only (MICO) mode (Para [4.2.2.2.2 General Registration], page 35; If the UE and the AMF have negotiated to enable MICO mode and the AMF uses the Extended connected timer, then the AMF provides the Extended Connected time value to NG-RAN).
Regarding Claim 48, TS 23.502 and Landais teach The method of claim 47, wherein the terminal device is in MICO mode and wherein the power saving configuration of the terminal device comprises one or more of: TS 23.502 further teaches:
at least one parameter about extended connected time for mobile initiated connection only (MICO) mode (Para [4.2.2.2.2 General Registration], page 35; If the UE and the AMF have negotiated to enable MICO mode and the AMF uses the Extended connected timer, then the AMF provides the Extended Connected time value to NG-RAN);
at least one parameter about active time for MICO mode (Para [4.2.3.2 UE Triggered Service Request], page 34; If the UE included MICO mode in the Registration Request, then AMF responds in the Registration Accept message whether MICO mode should be used. When MICO mode is allowed for the UE, the AMF may include an Active Time value and/or Strictly Periodic Registration Timer Indication in the Registration Accept message); and
at least one parameter about periodic registration timer control for MICO mode (Para [4.2.3.2 UE Triggered Service Request], page 34; If the UE included MICO mode in the Registration Request, then AMF responds in the Registration Accept message whether MICO mode should be used. When MICO mode is allowed for the UE, the AMF may include an Active Time value and/or Strictly Periodic Registration Timer Indication in the Registration Accept message).
Regarding Claim 49, Claim 49, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 46, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 46.
Regarding Claim 50, Claim 50, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 47, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 47.
Regarding Claim 51, Claim 51, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 48, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 48.
Regarding Claim 52, Claim 52, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 46, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 46.
Regarding Claim 53, Claim 53, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 47, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 47.
Regarding Claim 54, Claim 54, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 48, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 48.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights