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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Lee fails to teach or suggest "receiving a paging configuration indicating a paging occasion ("PO")" from a network node." Page 3 of the Office Action asserts that paragraph [0097] of Lee teaches this feature by describing a paging slot. The cited passage generally describes a paging slot that "may be configured." However, Lee fails to teach or suggest receiving a paging configuration indicating a specific PO (during which DCI is received on a PDCCH).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee discloses paging slot and parameters, including at least one of paging cycle, cell-ID, numerology (e.g., subcarrier spacing), slot length (e.g., regular slot or mini-slot), and frequency band (e.g., below 6 GHz or above 6 GHz) (0097). Lee further discloses clearly discloses network broadcast paging configuration, paging occasions and paging windows which are determined from broadcast system information and DRX parameter that the network transmits to the UE (see 0073-0081; 0089-0091; Fig. 2B: “paging with hyper frames”). The fact that Lee uses the phrase “may be configured” describes the configurable nature of paging resources; it does not negate that Lee discloses the network broadcasting a paging configuration that indicates PO timing which the UE receives. Therefore, Lee discloses “receiving a paging configuration indicating a paging occasion (“PO”) from a network node”.
Applicant argues “Even assuming for the sake of argument that Lee implicitly teaches receiving a paging configuration of a PO (which Applicant does not concede), Lee fails to teach or suggest "determining whether to receive data on a physical downlink shared channel ("PDSCH") associated with the PDCCH based on the DCI and/or the paging configuration." Page 4 of the Office Action asserts that Lee teaches these features in paragraphs [0046] and [0097]. However, the cited passages are silent regarding any determination of whether to receive data on a PDSCH associated with the PDCCH. As argued above, Lee fails to teach or suggest an explicit paging configuration. Therefore, Lee necessarily fails to teach or suggest determining whether to receive data on a PDSCH based on the paging configuration. Paragraph [0097] of Lee states that "the DCI may include paging information or scheduling information of PDSCH that may carry a paging message." However, Lee fails to teach or suggest that the paging information or scheduling information is used by the UE to determine whether to receive data on the PDSCH associated with the PDCCH. Accordingly, Claim 1 is patentable over Lee.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee clearly discloses that paging is triggered when data is available (0046). Lee clearly discloses that DCI contains information on paging occasions, paging slots, etc. in DCI transmitted to the UE; The DCI also contains information on PDSCH and PDCCH. Therefore, the UE clearly has the ability to determine when to receive data based on paging. Lee discloses that DCI transmitted on the PDCCH may include paging information of scheduling information for PDSCH that carries a paging message and that the UE demodulates/decodes PDSCH resources indicated by the DCI (0072). Lee also discloses association of NR-PDCCH with SSP blocks/paging slots and DCI usage (0117-0118) and further discloses paging configuration used to select PDCCH monitoring (0137-0139). Lee clearly discloses “determining whether to receive data on a physical downlink shared channel (“PDSCH”) associated with the PDCCH based on the DCI and/or the paging configurations”; because as can be seen with the cited paragraphs, the UE i) selects which PDCCHs to monitor based on the paging configuration and ii) demodulates the PDSCH when the received DCI indicates scheduling/paging.
Applicant’s arguments do not identify a missing limitation or a clear, material distinction from Lee. Hence, anticipation of the claim is met.
Applicant argues “The combination of Lee and Jou fail to teach or suggest each and every feature of Claim 7. For example, the combination fails to teach or suggest "recording paging statistics including one or more of: how often the UE is falsely paged; in what areas the UE is falsely paged; and at what times the UE is falsely paged." Page 6 of the Office Action concedes that Lee fails to teach or suggest these features. Instead, the Office Action relies on column 13 line 28 - column 14 line 56 of Jou to teach these features. The cited passage of Jou states that a "mobile station 10 transmits a quick paging channel status message to base station 12 indicating the number of hits, misses and false alarms detected withing the current time interval." Even assuming for the sake of argument that this portion of Jou describes a UE recording a number of times the UE is falsely paged (which Applicant does not concede), this fails to teach or suggest recording 1) how often the UE is falsely paged; 2) in what area the UE is falsely paged; or 3) at what time the UE is falsely paged. Therefore, Jou fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lee. Accordingly, Claim 7 is patentable over the combination of Lee and Jou.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee clearly discloses counters (QPCH_FA, QPCH_MI, QPCH_HI, QPCH_ER and QPCH_TO) that are incremented and stored over defined intervals. Recording counts over time intervals discloses “how often” the events occur (Col 13: 28 – Col 14: 56). Jou transmits the paging statistics to the base station. Therefore, Jou teaches “how often the UE is falsely paged”.
Applicant argues “The combination of Lee and Barber fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of Claim 11. For example, the combination fails to teach or suggest that "assigning the UE to the group is performed dynamically based on a frequency of pages associated with the UE." Page 7 of the Office Action concedes that Lee fails to teach or suggest these features. Instead, the Office Action relies on paragraphs [0036]-[0037] of Barber to teach these features. Paragraph [0036] of Barber states that a network "may dynamically reallocate an MS to a Paging Group with less frequent cycles." However, a frequency cycle of a Paging Group is not the same as a frequency of pages associated with a UE (or MS). Accordingly, dynamically reallocating an MS based on a frequency cycle of a Paging Group fails to teach or suggest dynamically reallocating an MS based on a frequency of pages associated with the MS. Therefore, Barber fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lee. Accordingly, claim 11 is patentable over the combination of Lee and Barber.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee clearly discloses groups that the UE can be assigned to, paging occasions and DRX cycles for the group (0100). Barber clearly discloses wherein assigning the UE to the group is performed dynamically based on a frequency of pages associated with the UE (0036-0037). Barber clearly discloses group reassignment based on page frequency. The UE is dynamically assigned to groups based on idle mode activation and changing network conditions changing. It is well established and well known that Idle mode is a power saving mode, which is requires less activation to search for paging for data transmissions to the UE, thus less pages associated with the UE. Barber clearly discloses assigning UEs to a paging group with less cycles, thus less paging (0036-0037).
Applicant argues that “Withdrawal of the rejections and issuance of a Notice of Allowance for Claims 1, 7, and 11 are respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applied references clearly disclose/teach the argued and claimed limitations, and the rejection of the claims is maintained. See responses to arguments above. Therefore, all the argued and claimed limitations have been met.
Previous Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2,4-11 and 27-33 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee.
Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed on 03/03/2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based on “Ericsson: False alarms with Paging 3GPP DRAFT; R2-1906606 FALSE ALARMS, WITH ROUTE PAGING, (3GPP), DES 3RD MOBILE LUCIO LES GENERATION. COMPETENCE F-06921 PARTNERSHIP CENTRE. 650, PROJECT SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX. FRANCE vol. RAN WG2, no. Reno, USA; 20190513-20190517 3 May 2019 (2019-05-03), XP051710916”. As the inventor has stated in the declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) “The Ericsson Document is not prior art to claims of the patent application because the Ericsson Document is my own public disclosure made not more than | year before the February 14, 2020 priority date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 62/976,710 from which the patent application claims effective priority” provides sufficient evidence of reliance on of the exception provisions of 35 USC 102(a)(1)(A).
However, the claims have been rejected with a new reference as cited below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 34, 9, 10 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200120634 A1 herein Lee.
Claim 1, Ericsson discloses a method of operating a wireless device (“UE”) in a communication network, the method comprising:
receiving a paging configuration indicating a paging occasion (“PO”) from a network node (0097, paging configuration with paging occasion, i.e. paging slot);
receiving a downlink control information (“DCI”) on a physical downlink control channel (“PDCCH”) during the PO (0097, DCI within a PDCCH transmitted during the paging slot); and
determining whether to receive data on a physical downlink shared channel (“PDSCH”) associated with the PDCCH based on the DCI and/or the paging configurations (0097, 0046, downlink data available when paged).
Claim 2, Ericsson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the paging configuration comprises an indication of a group that the UE has been assigned (0100), wherein determining whether to receive data on the PDSCH associated with the PDCCH based on the DCI and the paging configurations comprises: determining whether the DCI comprises one or more indicator bits indicating the group that the UE has been assigned (0072).
Claim 28, Lee discloses The method of Claim 2. Lee discloses wherein determining whether to receive data on the PDSCH associated with the PDCCH based on the DCI and the paging configurations comprises: determining that the DCI comprises one or more indicator bits indicating the group that the UE has been assigned (0072); and responsive to determining that the DCI comprises the one or more indicator bits indicating the group that the UE has been assigned, determining to receive the data on the PDSCH associated with the PDCCH (0072-0073).
Claim 29, Lee discloses The method of Claim 2. Lee discloses wherein determining whether to receive data on the PDSCH associated with the PDCCH based on the DCI and the paging configurations comprises: determining that the DCI does not comprise one or more indicator bits indicating the group that the UE has been assigned (0073); and responsive to determining that the DCI does not comprise the one or more indicator bits indicating the group that the UE has been assigned, determining to remain in a reduced power state during a time window associated with the PDSCH (0073, turn off receiver to save on battery power).
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.
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) 4, 7, 8, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 6687285 B1 herein Jou.
Claim 4, Lee discloses the method of Claim 1. Lee may not explicitly disclose further comprising: recording
Jou discloses recording UE is falsely paged (Col 13: 28 – Col 14: 56, counters on false paging); and transmitting (Col 13: 28 – Col 14: 56, transmission status of the paging channel to the base station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include controlling transmission power of pages based on statistics provided by a mobile device as taught by Jou so as to not reduce the capacity of the base station (Col 14: 30-42).
Claim 7, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 8, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 30, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claims 2 and 28.
Claim 31, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claims 2 and 29.
Claim 36, Lee in view of Jou discloses The method of Claim 4. Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein recording the paging statistics comprises recording the paging statistics including one or more of: in what areas the UE is falsely paged; and at what times the UE is falsely paged.
Jou discloses recording the paging statistics including one or more of: in what areas the UE is falsely paged; and at what times the UE is falsely paged (Col 13: 28 – Col 14: 56, counters of false paging within a current time interval); and transmitting (Col 13: 28 – Col 14: 56, transmission status of the paging channel to the base station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include controlling transmission power of pages based on statistics provided by a mobile device as taught by Jou so as to not reduce the capacity of the base station (Col 14: 30-42).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 20190349856 A1 herein Liu.
Claim 5, Lee discloses the method of Claim 2. Lee may not explicitly disclose further comprising: transmitting
Liu discloses transmitting (0104), wherein receiving the paging configurations comprises receiving a second message from the network node indicating a paging group that the UE is assigned (0107, 0123). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include group and subgroup identifiers for UEs as taught by Liu so as to improve notification of signal (0002).
Claim 6, Lee may not explicitly disclose the method of Claim 5, wherein the first message further includes information associated with the UE, the information comprising at least one of primary tasks performed by the UE, capabilities of the UE, a type of the UE, and a preferred minimum scheduling offset.
Liu discloses wherein the first message further includes information associated with the UE, the information comprising at least one of primary tasks performed by the UE, capabilities of the UE, a type of the UE, and a preferred minimum scheduling offset (0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include group and subgroup identifiers for UEs as taught by Liu so as to improve notification of signal (0002).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 20080070594 A1 herein Barber.
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. Lee discloses DRX cycles (0073). Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein assigning the UE to the group is performed dynamically based on a frequency of pages associated with the UE.
Barber discloses wherein assigning the UE to the group is performed dynamically based on a frequency of pages associated with the UE (0036-0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include dynamic paging group assignments of UE as taught by Barber so as to to more appropriately tailor the available set of Paging Groups to the changing set of MS (0037).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Barber in view of Jou.
Claim 27, Lee discloses the method of Claim 11. Lee discloses wherein the paging configuration comprises an indication of a group that the UE has been assigned (0100). With respect to the amended limitations, the amended limitations are analyzed with respect to the limitations of claim 4.
Claim(s) 32 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Jou in view of Liu.
Claim 32, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5 and 6. The amended limitations are analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 6.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170142560 A1 - A method for transmitting and receiving a group messaging in a wireless communication system and an apparatus for the same is disclosed. Particularly, the method for receiving a group message performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system include receiving assistance information indicating whether a paging message is transmitted for each UE group from a network node, receiving the paging message from the network node on a paging occasion of the UE, when the transmission of the paging message for a group to which the UE is belonged in indicated by the assistance information, and receiving the group message, when a group message transmission for the group to which the UE is belonged is activated by the paging message.
Conclusion
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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419