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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 08, 2025 has been entered.
Claim status
Claims 1, 4, 11 and 24 are amended.
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 24 and 26-33 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/08/2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view
of new grounds of rejection presented in this office action, which better addresses the
claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites in line 12 “exceeding the duration of the unavailable state”. There is no sufficient antecedent basis for “the duration of the unavailable state”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 12, 24, 26 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over SABOURI-SICHANI et al. (US 2023/0042849 A1) in view of Raghunathan et al. (US
2019/0104474 A1) and further in view of LIU (WO 2020252795).
Regarding claim 1,
SABOURI discloses “A method of operating a network node in a communication network,
the method comprising” (See Fig. 4, gNB-2): “receiving a message from a communication
device connected to the network node and operating in the communication network, the
message indicating that the communication device will enter an unavailable state” (See
Fig. 4, [0063] In step 435, the UE 110 sends an RRC message to gNB-2, informing the gNB-
2 170-1 of the unavailability of the UE for time intervals t(SF.sub.n) and t(SF.sub.n+x)); “and
responsive to receiving the message, preventing scheduling of a transmission to the
communication device” (See [0064] In response, in step 440, the gNB-2 170-1 will avoid
scheduling (e.g., by signing off) the UE during the informed time intervals).
SABOURI also discloses the UE sending bits indicting the predefined duration of unavailability. See [0083] To indicate a specific amount of time, the UE could use an UL
channel capable of carrying multiple bits for the non-availability information, and in this
case, the UL signaling for this could be an indication of start and duration of the
unavailability time (e.g., in a predefined granularity or predefined durations).
SABOURI does not explicitly disclose receiving a MAC PDU including a bit indicating whether
the unavailable state is for a predetermined duration.
However, Raghunathan discloses “and wherein receiving the message comprises receiving
a media access control, MAC, protocol data unit, PDU including a single bit indicating
whether the unavailable state is for a predetermined duration” (See [0093] UE 115-a may
transmit a distinct connection suspend request 210 to base station 105-a for at least
acknowledgment and confirmation of a dormancy state implementation at UE 115-a. [0094]
UE 115-a may implement a distinct bit string (e.g., MAC CE) within a MAC PDU for control
indication regarding the request for control command exchange between UE 115-a and base
station 105-a. The payload of the MAC CE indicated by UE 115-a may include additional
reserved bit elements mapped within the field structure of the MAC CE, as a means to
indicate priority and/or duration values (e.g., indicating how long the UE will need or would
like to be in the dormancy state) associated with the dormancy state request. [0104]
The request message may correspond to a single bit command indication soliciting a switch
to a power saving mode (e.g., dormancy state) at UE 115-a, and may include one or more
additional bit indicators corresponding to a priority indication and/or enactment duration of
the dormancy state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI
with the teachings of Raghunathan, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce
overall signaling between the UE and the BS (Raghunathan [0086]) and enhance power
savings (Raghunathan [0110]).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan does not explicitly disclose the unavailable state is for a non-predetermined amount of time, determining that an amount of time exceeds a threshold, and releasing the RRC connection and RRC context.
However, LIU discloses “responsive to the message indicating the communication device will be in the unavailable state for a non-predetermined amount of time, determining whether an amount of time since receiving the message exceeds a threshold duration; and responsive to determining that the amount of time since receiving the message exceeds the threshold duration, releasing the RRC connection and a RRC context with the communication device by assuming the UE to be in RRC IDLE state” (See [0043] The terminal device sends first indication information to a first network device, where the first indication information is used to indicate that the terminal device is to be handed over/switched from a first network or system to a second network or system. [0062] the terminal device may directly send the first indication information to the first access network device. [0065] the first access network device may send first signaling, for example, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, to the terminal device. [0072] For the first access network device, after sending the first signaling including the time information, the first access network device may also start a timer, and when the timer expires, if the first access network device does not return to the first network, for example, does not receive a notification message or an available message that the terminal device returns to the first network, the first access network device releases the locally stored context information of the terminal device in the first network, and releases a network connection of the terminal device in the first network. Note: The first indication information from the terminal indicates the switching/ unavailability, and since the network node is the node sending time threshold/ timer information, it means the terminal did not predetermine the amount of time it will be unavailable. When the threshold duration/ timer is exceeded/expires, the RRC connection and RRC context are released, which means the network node assumes the terminal is idle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI
and Raghunathan, with the teachings of LIU, and the motivation to do so would have been to conserve network resources.
Regarding claim 3,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 1, wherein the bit
indicates that the unavailable state is for the predetermined duration, and wherein the
MAC PDU further includes a set of bits indicating a value of the predetermined duration” (See Raghunathan [0094] The payload of the MAC CE indicated by UE 115-a may include
additional reserved bit elements mapped within the field structure of the MAC CE, as a
means to indicate priority and/or duration values (e.g., indicating how long the UE will need or would like to be in the dormancy state) associated with the dormancy state request. [0104] The request message may correspond to a single bit command indication soliciting a switch to a power saving mode (e.g., dormancy state) at UE 115-a, and may include one or more additional bit indicators corresponding to a priority indication and/or enactment duration of the dormancy state).
Regarding claim 4,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 1, wherein the message comprises a first message” (See SABOURI Fig. 6, Step 630), the method further comprising: responsive to the message indicating the communication device will be in the unavailable state for a non-predetermined amount of time or a predetermined amount of time, determining whether an amount of time since receiving the message exceeds a threshold duration” (See Fig. 6, step 635 (Timer T starts), [0081] an unavailable timer may be configured by the NW. See Fig. 6, step 650, [0081] the timer stops (by the UE) if the UE is available before the time is elapsed); “receiving, after preventing the scheduling of the transmission to the communication device and prior to the amount of time exceeding the threshold duration, a second message from the communication device indicating that the communication device has returned to an available state” (See SABOURI Fig. 6, [0080]
In step 655, the UE may remove the “unavailable flag” at the gNB-2 170-1 when the UE's
activity with gNB-1 is completed. This availability can be informed to the NW by a UCI
message, indicating the UE is now available (e.g., the unavailable flag 631 has a value of
“available”. Note: The availability message 655 is received before the timer elapses); “and responsive to receiving the second message from the communication device, resuming scheduling of the transmission to the communication device” (See SABOURI [0080] In response, the gNB-2 170-1 in block 660 the gNB-2 will resume, or have the capability to resume, any activities with the UE 110. That is, the gNB-2 can resume activities in response to the reception of the messaging in step 655. Note: Resuming activities with the UE includes resuming scheduling to the UE).
Regarding claim 6,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 1, wherein the message further indicates a duration of the unavailable state, the method further comprising” (See SABOURI Fig. 6, [0078] In step 610, each gNB supporting the UE's unavailability has configured the UE for a maximum (max) allowed unavailable time of with a value of t_xxx. [0083] To indicate a specific amount of time, the UE could use an UL channel capable of carrying multiple bits for the non- availability information, and in this case, the UL signaling for this could be an indication of start and duration of the unavailability time (e.g., in a predefined granularity or predefined durations). Note: The gNB sets a maximum allowed unavailability time, alternatively the UE sends unavailability duration information in the unavailability message): “determining that an amount of time since receiving the message exceeds a threshold amount of time, the threshold amount of time being based on the duration of the unavailability state; and responsive to determining that the amount of time since receiving the message exceeds the threshold amount of time, resuming scheduling of the transmission to the communication device” (See SABOURI [0081] In the example of FIG. 6, a timer T is started in reference 635 with a timer value 638 of t_xxx, and should end t_xxx seconds later. In block 650, the timer stops (by the UE) if the UE is available before the time is elapsed. If the NW does not receive a message with UE's availability before the timer expires, the NW considers the UE to be available at the latest at timer T's expiry). Note: If the amount of time exceeds the threshold of the maximum allowed time or the unavailability time indicated by the UE, the network considers the UE to be available which means it resumes scheduling).
Regarding claim 12,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 1, wherein the network node is a radio access network, RAN, node and the communication network is a new radio, NR, network” (See SABOURI [0016] The RAN node 170 is also referred to as gNB-1 herein, and the RAN node 170-1 is also referred to as gNB-2. [0017] The RAN node 170 may be, for instance, a base station for 5G, also called New Radio (NR)).
Regarding claim 24,
SABOURI discloses “A method of operating a communication device, the method
comprising” (See Fig. 4, UE 110): “transmitting a message to a network node that is
connected to the communication device and operating in a communication network, the
message indicating that the communication device will enter an unavailable state” (See
Fig. 4, [0063] In step 435, the UE 110 sends an RRC message to gNB-2, informing the gNB-
2 170-1 of the unavailability of the UE for time intervals t(SF.sub.n) and t(SF.sub.n+x)); “and
subsequent to transmitting the message, transitioning to an unavailable state with the
network node” (See Fig. 4, during the time interval t(SF.sub.n) and t(SF.sub.n+x), the UE is
unavailable/signed off from gNB-2 and is active with gNB-1).
SABOURI also discloses the UE sending bits indicting the predefined duration of
unavailability. See [0083] To indicate a specific amount of time, the UE could use an UL
channel capable of carrying multiple bits for the non-availability information, and in this
case, the UL signaling for this could be an indication of start and duration of the
unavailability time (e.g., in a predefined granularity or predefined durations).
SABOURI does not explicitly disclose receiving a MAC PDU including a bit indicating whether
the unavailable state is for a predetermined duration.
However, Raghunathan discloses “and wherein receiving the message comprises receiving
a media access control, MAC, protocol data unit, PDU including a single bit indicating
whether the unavailable state is for a predetermined duration” (See [0093] UE 115-a may
transmit a distinct connection suspend request 210 to base station 105-a for at least
acknowledgment and confirmation of a dormancy state implementation at UE 115-a. [0094] UE 115-a may implement a distinct bit string (e.g., MAC CE) within a MAC PDU for control
indication regarding the request for control command exchange between UE 115-a and base
station 105-a. The payload of the MAC CE indicated by UE 115-a may include additional
reserved bit elements mapped within the field structure of the MAC CE, as a means to
indicate priority and/or duration values (e.g., indicating how long the UE will need or would
like to be in the dormancy state) associated with the dormancy state request. [0104]
The request message may correspond to a single bit command indication soliciting a switch
to a power saving mode (e.g., dormancy state) at UE 115-a, and may include one or more
additional bit indicators corresponding to a priority indication and/or enactment duration of
the dormancy state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI
with the teachings of Raghunathan, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce
overall signaling between the UE and the BS (Raghunathan [0086]) and enhance power
savings (Raghunathan [0110]).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan does not explicitly disclose the unavailable state is for a non-predetermined amount of time, determining that an amount of time exceeds a threshold, and releasing the RRC connection and RRC context.
However, LIU discloses “and responsive to the message indicating the unavailable state is for anon-predetermined amount of time and the amount of time since transmitting the message exceeding the duration of the unavailable state, losing the RRC connection and a RRC context with the network node” ” (See [0043] The terminal device sends first indication information to a first network device, where the first indication information is used to indicate that the terminal device is to be handed over/switched from a first network or system to a second network or system. [0062] the terminal device may directly send the first indication information to the first access network device. [0065] the first access network device may send first signaling, for example, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, to the terminal device. [0071] For the terminal device, after receiving the first signaling including the time information, the terminal device may start a timer, the duration of the timer may be the duration indicated by the time information, and when the timer expires, if the terminal device does not return to the first network, that is, the first network is not restarted, the terminal device releases the context information of the terminal device in the first network and returns to the idle state. Note: The first indication information from the terminal indicates the switching/ unavailability, and since the network node is the node sending time threshold/ timer information, it means the terminal did not predetermine the amount of time it will be unavailable. When the threshold duration/ timer is exceeded/expires, the RRC connection and RRC context are released.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI
and Raghunathan, with the teachings of LIU, and the motivation to do so would have been to conserve network resources.
Regarding claim 26,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 24, wherein the bit indicates that the unavailable state is for the predetermined duration, and wherein the
MAC PDU further includes a set of bits indicating a value of the predetermined duration”
(See Raghunathan [0094] The payload of the MAC CE indicated by UE 115-a may include
additional reserved bit elements mapped within the field structure of the MAC CE, as a
means to indicate priority and/or duration values (e.g., indicating how long the UE will need or would like to be in the dormancy state) associated with the dormancy state request.
[0104] The request message may correspond to a single bit command indication soliciting a
switch to a power saving mode (e.g., dormancy state) at UE 115-a, and may include one or
more additional bit indicators corresponding to a priority indication and/or enactment
duration of the dormancy state).
Regarding claim 30,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 24, wherein the network node is a first network node and the communication network is a first communication network, wherein the communication device comprises a first subscriber identity module, SIM, associated with the first communication network and a second SIM associated with a second communication network” (See SABOURI [0035] In FIG. 2(b), the two USIMs 250-1, 250-2 in UE 110 belong to different MNOs, indicated by two different core networks EPC/5GC-1 191- 1 and EPC/5GC-1 191-2. See Fig. 2(b), gNB-1 (170) and gNB-2 (170-1) belong to different communication networks), “and wherein transitioning to an unavailable state comprises communicating with a second network node operating in the second communication network using the second SIM” (See SABOURI Fig. 4, [0062] In step 410, a SIM1 in the UE has UL data to be transmitted to gNB-1, [0063] In step 435, the UE 110 sends an RRC message (in this example) to gNB-2, informing the gNB-2 170-1 of the unavailability of the UE for time intervals t(SF.sub.n) and t(SF.sub.n+x), [0065] The UE in step 470 performs the scheduled UL transmission to gNB-1 170 in SF.sub.n, and performs in step 480 the scheduled UL transmission to gNB-1 170 in SF.sub.n+x).
Regarding claim 31,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 24, wherein the network node is a radio access network, RAN, node and the communication network is a new radio, NR, network” (See [0016] The RAN node 170 is also referred to as gNB-1 herein, and the RAN node 170-1 is also referred to as gNB-2. [0017] The RAN node 170 may be, for instance, a base station for 5G, also called New Radio (NR)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABOURI-SICHANI et al.
(US 2023/0042849 A1) in view of Raghunathan et al. (US 2019/0104474 A1) and further in view of LIU (WO 2020252795) and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0127408 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of claim 4”, but does not explicitly disclose that the second message comprises a buffer status report including an indication that the communication device has returned to the available state.
However, analogous art Wu discloses “wherein the second message comprises a buffer
status report that includes an indication that the communication device has returned to
the available state” (See [0059] In the case that BSR is allowed to be triggered but not allowed to be transmitted when the connection between UE A and BS A is suspended, if
a BSR was triggered during the absence time, UE A may transmit the BSR to BS A once UE
A returns to BS A before, at, or even after the end of the absence time. Note: The BSR
indicates that the UE has returned to the BS which is an available state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of Wu, and the motivation to do so would have been to inform the network node of an updated value of buffer size, which may change during the absence time (Wu [0058]), which helps maintain efficient communication.
Claims 7, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABOURI-
SICHANI et al. (US 2023/0042849 A1) in view of Raghunathan et al. (US 2019/0104474 A1)
and further in view of LIU (WO 2020252795) and further in view of OZTURK et al. (US 2020/0053791 A1).
Regarding claim 7,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 4, further comprising: responsive to resuming scheduling of the transmission to the communication device, transmitting data to the communication device” (See SABOURI [0080] In response, the gNB-2 170-1 in block 660 the gNB-2 will resume, or have the capability to resume, any
activities with the UE 110. That is, the gNB-2 can resume activities in response to the
reception of the messaging in step 655. Note: Resuming activities with the UE includes
resuming scheduling and transmitting data).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU does not explicitly disclose the network node receives an acknowledgment from the communication device indicating that the communication device received the data.
However, OZTURK discloses “and subsequent to transmitting the data to the
communication device, receiving an acknowledgment message from the communication
device indicating that the communication device received the data” (See [0104] The
apparatus may include a resume component configured to receive a resume message from
the UE prior to transmitting the downlink data packet. The apparatus may include an ACK
component configured to receive, from the UE, an acknowledgement of a successful
reception of the downlink data packet. [0103] The apparatus is a base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of OZTURK, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure reliable communication.
Regarding claim 27,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 24, wherein the message is a first message” (See SABOURI Fig. 6, Step 630), “the method further comprising: transmitting, after transitioning to the unavailable state, a second message to the network node indicating that the communication device has returned to an available
state” (See SABOURI Fig. 6, [0080] In step 655, the UE may remove the “unavailable flag” at
the gNB-2 170-1 when the UE's activity with gNB-1 is completed. This availability can be informed to the NW by a UCI message, indicating the UE is now available (e.g., the
unavailable flag 631 has a value of “available); “subsequent to transmitting the second
message, receiving data from the network node” (See SABOURI [0080] In response, the
gNB-2 170-1 in block 660 the gNB-2 will resume, or have the capability to resume, any
activities with the UE 110. That is, the gNB-2 can resume activities in response to the
reception of the messaging in step 655. Note: Resuming activities with the UE includes
transmitting data to the UE).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU does not explicitly disclose the communication device transmits an acknowledgment to the network node indicating that the communication device received the data.
However, OZTURK discloses “and responsive to receiving the data from the network node,
transmitting an acknowledgment message to the network node indicating that the
communication device received the data” (See [0104] The apparatus may include a resume
component configured to receive a resume message from the UE prior to transmitting the
downlink data packet. The apparatus may include an ACK component configured to receive,
from the UE, an acknowledgement of a successful reception of the downlink data packet.
[0103] The apparatus is a base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of OZTURK, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure reliable communication.
Regarding claim 29,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 24, wherein the message further indicates a duration of the unavailable state, the method further comprising” (See SABOURI Fig. 6, [0078] In step 610, each gNB supporting the UE's unavailability has configured the UE for a maximum (max) allowed unavailable time of with a value of t_xxx. [0083] To indicate a specific amount of time, the UE could use an UL channel capable of carrying multiple bits for the non-availability information, and in this case, the UL signaling for this could be an indication of start and duration of the unavailability time (e.g., in a predefined granularity or predefined durations). Note: The gNB sets a maximum allowed unavailability time, alternatively the UE sends unavailability duration information in the unavailability message): “responsive to an amount of time since transmitting the message exceeding the duration of the unavailable state, receiving data from the network node” (See SABOURI [0081] In the example of FIG. 6, a timer T is started in reference 635 with a timer value 638 of t_xxx, and should end t_xxx seconds later. In block 650, the timer stops (by the UE) if the UE is available before the time is elapsed. If the NW does not receive a message with UE's availability before the timer expires, the NW considers the UE to be available at the latest at timer T's expiry). Note: If the amount of time exceeds the threshold of the maximum allowed time or the unavailability time indicated by the UE, the network considers the UE to be available which means it resumes scheduling and transmitting data).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU does not explicitly disclose the communication device transmits an acknowledgment to the network node indicating that the communication device received the data.
However, OZTURK discloses “and responsive to receiving the data from the network node,
transmitting an acknowledgment message to the network node indicating that the
communication device received the data” (See [0104] The apparatus may include a resume
component configured to receive a resume message from the UE prior to transmitting the
downlink data packet. The apparatus may include an ACK component configured to receive,
from the UE, an acknowledgement of a successful reception of the downlink data packet.
[0103] The apparatus is a base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of OZTURK, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure reliable communication.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABOURI-SICHANI et al.
(US 2023/0042849 A1) in view of Raghunathan et al. (US 2019/0104474 A1) and further in view of LIU (WO 2020252795) and further in view of OTAKA et al. (US 2022/0061114 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of Claim 4, further comprising: responsive to resuming scheduling of transmission to the communication device, transmitting data to the communication device” (See SABOURI [0080] In response, the gNB-2 170-1 in block 660 the gNB-2 will resume, or have the capability to resume, any
activities with the UE 110. That is, the gNB-2 can resume activities in response to the reception of the messaging in step 655. Note: Resuming activities with the UE includes
resuming scheduling and transmitting data).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU does not explicitly disclose releasing the connection after an amount of time is exceeded.
However, OTAKA discloses “determining that an amount of time since transmitting the
data to the communication device exceeds a predetermined amount of time; and
responsive to determining that the amount of time since transmitting the data to the
communication device exceeds the predetermined amount of time, releasing a connection
with the communication device” (See [0026] in response to a state where a time during
which a communication is not performed has passed a time indicated by a preset timer
value, a wireless communication connection with the wireless communication device is
released, the conventional wireless base station transmits Radio Resource Control (RRC)
Connection Release to the wireless communication device in response to a state where the
time during which the communication is not performed has passed the time indicated by
the timer value, and releases the wireless communication connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of OTAKA, and the motivation to do so would have been for resource optimization.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABOURI-SICHANI et al.
(US 2023/0042849 A1) in view of Raghunathan et al. (US 2019/0104474 A1) and further in view of LIU (WO 2020252795) and further in view of ASWANI (WO 2018/144722 A1).
Regarding claim 9,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of claim 4”, but does not explicitly disclose preventing a period of time between preventing and resuming the scheduling from being considered from a QoS perspective.
However, ASWANI discloses “further comprising: preventing a period of time between
preventing the scheduling of the transmission to the communication device and resuming
the scheduling of the transmission to the communication device from being considered
from a quality of service, QoS, perspective” (See [0054] In the RRC Idle state, the device
may disconnect from the network and avoid performing operations such as channel quality
feedback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of ASWANI, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce power consumption (ASWANI [0054]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABOURI-SICHANI et al. (US 2023/0042849 A1) in view of Raghunathan et al. (US 2019/0104474 A1) and further in view of LIU (WO 2020252795) and further in view of Marupaduga et al. (US 10,264,596 B1).
Regarding claim 11,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of claim 1”, but does not
explicitly disclose determining the threshold duration based on a type of connection
between the communication device and the network node.
However, Marupaduga discloses “further comprising: determining the threshold duration
based on a type of a connection between the communication device and the network
node” (See Col. 10, lines 34-49, For instance, as discussed above, at times of day when the
relay base station tends to serve high-priority communications (e.g., voice calls) in
particular, the relay-WCD could dynamically apply a longer threshold inactivity period, to
help minimize downtime resulting from the relay base station going offline just briefly (e.g.,
if the relay base station gets rebooted or the like). Whereas, at times of day when the relay base station tends to not serve high-priority communications, the relay-WCD could
dynamically apply a shorter threshold inactivity period, to help conserve network resources
by allowing quicker release of the relay-WCD's APN connection in response to absence of
communication-on-communication interface 36). Note: Marupaduga discloses that the
threshold time of inactivity depends on the type of communication and its priority.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of Marupaduga, and the motivation to do so
would have been to help conserve network resources by allowing quicker connection
release in case of lower priority type of communication (Marupaduga Col. 10, lines 46-49).
Claims 13-14 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over SABOURI-SICHANI et al. (US 2023/0042849 A1) in view of Raghunathan et al. (US
2019/0104474 A1) and further in view of LIU (WO 2020252795) and further in view of CHEN et al. (US 2023/0047213 A1).
Regarding claim 13,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the message is a first message” (See SABOURI Fig. 4, Step 435).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU does not explicitly disclose receiving RRC connection setup request from the communication device indicating that the communication device is capable of entering the unavailable state; and responsive to receiving the RRC connection setup request, transmitting a second message indicating that the network node supports unavailability requests.
However, CHEN discloses “receiving, prior to receiving the first message, a radio resource
control, RRC, connection setup request from the communication device, the RRC
connection setup request indicating that the communication device is capable of entering
the unavailable state” (See Fig. 1, [0116] In action 102, the UE transmits, to a first network
associated with a first USIM of the UE, a first indication indicating that a status of a multi-
SIM operation is active. Based on the received first indication, the first network may know
that the UE supports the multi-SIM operation and the UE may leave the first network since
the multi-SIM operation is currently active. [0053] a multi-SIM UE may inform a network (or
the corresponding base station) about its capability of supporting the multi-SIM operation.
In some implementations, a multi-SIM UE may inform a network (or the corresponding base
station) about its capability of supporting the multi-SIM operation via a network request.
Note: The UE supporting multi-SIM operation and its capability of leaving the network is an
indication that the UE is capable of entering the unavailable state. [0061] a multi-SIM UE
may report its status of the multi-SIM operation via MSG3. The MSG3 may carry an RRC
Connection Request message); “and responsive to receiving the RRC connection setup
request, transmitting a second message indicating that the network node supports
unavailability requests” (See [0117] In action 104, the UE receives, from the first network, a
second indication indicating that the UE is allowed to transmit a network switch request
message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of CHEN, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve the utilization efficiency of the RRC signaling.
Regarding claim 14,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the message is a first message” (See SABOURI Fig. 4, Step 435).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU does not explicitly disclose transmitting an RRC setup message indicating the network supports unavailability requests, and receiving an RRC
connection setup confirmation indicating the device is capable of entering the unavailable
state.
However, CHEN discloses “the method further comprising: transmitting a radio resource
connection, RRC, setup message to the communication device, indicating that the network
node supports unavailability requests” (See [0062] a base station (e.g., a gNB) may provide
an indication via MSG4 to indicate to a multi-SIM UE to report its status of the multi-SIM
operation via MSG5. Note: Since the gNB is indicating to the UE to report its status of multi-
SIM operation, it means that the gNB already supports multi-SIM operation which includes
unavailability requests/network switch requests. [0063] The MSG4 may carry an RRC Setup
message); “and subsequent to transmitting the RRC setup message, receiving, prior to
receiving the first message, a RRC connection setup confirmation from the communication
device indicating that the communication device is capable of entering the unavailable
state” (See [0062] a multi-SIM UE may report its status of the multi-SIM operation via MSG5. [0063] The MSG5 may carry an RRC Setup Complete message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI, Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of CHEN, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve the utilization efficiency of the RRC signaling.
Regarding claim 15,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan, LIU and CHEN discloses “The method of Claim 13, wherein the communication network is a first communication network, and wherein, indicating that the communication device is capable of entering the unavailable state comprises an indication that the communication device supports a first subscriber identity module, SIM, associated with the first communication network and a second SIM associated with a second communication network” (See SABOURI [0035] In FIG. 2(b), the two USIMs 250-1, 250-2 in UE 110 belong to different MNOs, indicated by two different core networks EPC/5GC-1 191- 1 and EPC/5GC-1 191-2. See Fig. 2(b), gNB-1 (170) and gNB-2 (170-1) belong to different communication networks). Fig. 4, [0062] In step 410, a SIM1 in the UE has UL data to be transmitted to gNB-1, [0063] In step 435, the UE 110 sends an RRC message (in this example) to gNB-2, informing the gNB-2 170-1 of the unavailability of the UE for time intervals t(SF.sub.n) and t(SF.sub.n+x), [0065] The UE in step 470 performs the scheduled UL transmission to gNB-1 170 in SF.sub.n, and performs in step 480 the scheduled UL transmission to gNB-1 170 in SF.sub.n+x).
SABOURI discloses the UE operating in multi-SIM and is capable of being unavailable from gNB-2/ SIM 2 while being available for gNB-1/SIM 1, but does not explicitly disclose the
message indicating capability of entering unavailable state/ supporting multi-SIM operation.
However, CHEN explicitly discloses “indicating that the communication device is capable of
entering the unavailable state comprises an indication that the communication device
supports a first subscriber identity module, SIM, associated with the first communication
network and a second SIM associated with a second communication network” (See Fig. 1,
[0116] In action 102, the UE transmits, to a first network associated with a first USIM of the
UE, a first indication indicating that a status of a multi-SIM operation is active. Based on the
received first indication, the first network may know that the UE supports the multi-SIM
operation and the UE may leave the first network since the multi-SIM operation is currently
active. [0053] a multi-SIM UE may inform a network (or the corresponding base station)
about its capability of supporting the multi-SIM operation. In some implementations, a
multi-SIM UE may inform a network (or the corresponding base station) about its capability
of supporting the multi-SIM operation via a network request. Note: The UE supporting
multi-SIM operation and its capability of leaving the network is an indication that the UE is
capable of entering the unavailable state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of CHEN, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve the utilization efficiency of the RRC signaling.
Regarding claim 32,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of claim 24, wherein the message is a first message” (See SABOURI Fig. 4, Step 435).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU does not explicitly disclose transmitting RRC connection setup request from the communication device indicating that the communication device is capable of entering the unavailable state; and responsive to receiving the RRC connection setup request, transmitting a second message indicating that the network node supports unavailability requests.
However, CHEN discloses “the method further comprising: transmitting, prior to
transmitting the first message, a radio resource control, RRC, connection setup request
indicating that the communication device is capable of entering the unavailable state”
(See Fig. 1, [0116] In action 102, the UE transmits, to a first network associated with a first
USIM of the UE, a first indication indicating that a status of a multi-SIM operation is active.
Based on the received first indication, the first network may know that the UE supports the
multi-SIM operation and the UE may leave the first network since the multi-SIM operation is
currently active. [0053] a multi-SIM UE may inform a network (or the corresponding base
station) about its capability of supporting the multi-SIM operation. In some
implementations, a multi-SIM UE may inform a network (or the corresponding base station)
about its capability of supporting the multi-SIM operation via a network request. Note: The
UE supporting multi-SIM operation and its capability of leaving the network is an indication
that the UE is capable of entering the unavailable state. [0061] a multi-SIM UE may report
its status of the multi-SIM operation via MSG3. The MSG3 may carry an RRC Connection
Request message); “and subsequent to transmitting the RRC connection setup request, receiving a second message indicating that the network node supports unavailability
requests” (See [0117] In action 104, the UE receives, from the first network, a second
indication indicating that the UE is allowed to transmit a network switch request message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of CHEN, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve the utilization efficiency of the RRC signaling.
Regarding claim 33,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU discloses “The method of claim 24, wherein the message is a first message” (See SABOURI Fig. 4, Step 435).
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan and LIU does not explicitly disclose transmitting an RRC setup message indicating the network supports unavailability requests, and receiving an RRC
connection setup confirmation indicating the device is capable of entering the unavailable
state.
However, CHEN discloses “the method further comprising: receiving a radio resource
connection, RRC, setup message from the network node, indicating that the network node
supports unavailability requests” (See [0062] a base station (e.g., a gNB) may provide an
indication via MSG4 to indicate to a multi-SIM UE to report its status of the multi-SIM
operation via MSG5. Note: Since the gNB is indicating to the UE to report its status of multi-
SIM operation, it means that the gNB already supports multi-SIM operation which includes unavailability requests/network switch requests. [0063] The MSG4 may carry an RRC Setup
message; “and responsive to receiving the RRC setup message, transmitting, prior to
receiving the first message, a RRC connection setup confirmation indicating that the
communication device is capable of entering the unavailable state” (See [0062] a multi-SIM UE may report its status of the multi-SIM operation via MSG5. [0063] The MSG5 may carry an RRC Setup Complete message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of CHEN, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve the utilization efficiency of the RRC signaling.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABOURI-
SICHANI et al. (US 2023/0042849 A1) in view of Raghunathan et al. (US 2019/0104474 A1)
and further in view of LIU (WO 2020252795) and further in view of OZTURK et al. (US 2020/0053791 A1) and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0127408 A1).
Regarding claim 28,
SABOURI in view of Raghunathan, LIU and OZTURK discloses “The method of claim 27” but does not explicitly disclose that the second message comprises a buffer status report including an indication that the communication device has returned to the available state.
However, analogous art Wu discloses “wherein the second message comprises a buffer
status report that includes an indication that the communication device has returned to
the available state” (See [0059] In the case that BSR is allowed to be triggered but not
allowed to be transmitted when the connection between UE A and BS A is suspended, if
a BSR was triggered during the absence time, UE A may transmit the BSR to BS A once UE
A returns to BS A before, at, or even after the end of the absence time. Note: The BSR
indicates that the UE has returned to the BS which is an available state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of SABOURI,
Raghunathan and LIU with the teachings of Wu, and the motivation to do so would have been to inform the network node of an updated value of buffer size, which may change during the absence time (Wu [0058]), which helps maintain efficient communication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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.