DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on July 13, 2026, after the non-final rejection of the application.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 7/13/26 has been entered. Claims 14-15 were canceled. Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are pending for examination, of which claims 1-4 have been amended.
In light of amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) was withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1-4 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16-17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20120178489 A1), hereinafter Kang, in view of Ranta et al. (US 20050180449 A1), hereinafter Ranta.
Regarding claim 1:
Kang discloses a method of operating a receiving radio node in a wireless communication network (method of interrupting data transmission at subscriber station {SS}, e.g., receiving radio node [0012, lines 10-12]), the method comprising:
receiving a data signaling indication from a transmitting radio node (receiving access admission command, e.g., data signaling indication, from BS, e.g., transmitting radio node[0069]), the data signaling indication indicating that data signaling being in a period is to be received by the receiving radio node (access admission command is for establishing flows used to exchange data with BS, an upon arrival of access admission time period [0069], during which, SS and BS communicate data [0048] or SS receives downlink data [0047, lines 9-12]);
receiving the data signaling based on a data signaling indication (SS receives downlink data [0047, lines 9-12] or exchanging data with BS based on access admission command [0069]); and
receiving an interruption indication from the transmitting radio node (receiving access-deny command signal from BS [0069], wherein access-deny command includes access interruption indication information with respect to service flow [0048]).
Kang does not explicitly teach the access admission time period is unspecified and data signaling of an unspecified duration will be transmitted until an unspecified time or until further notice.
Ranta, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the time period can be unspecified (High Speed Downlink Packet Access {HSDPA} periods vary from 50 milliseconds to 1000 milliseconds, e.g., duration can be any length between 50ms and 1000ms [0054]) and data signaling of an unspecified duration will be transmitted until an unspecified time or until further notice (control signal carries instructions for suspending of HSDPA connection, which may be activated and possibly deactivated, e.g., further notice, based on suspension parameters [0078].
Also, Ranta teaches that transmission of downlink channels is interrupted in suspension time periods [0094].
It would be obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive data signaling indication of an unspecified duration and an interruption indication in communicating data, and wherein data signaling of an unspecified duration will be transmitted until an unspecified time or until further notice; thus improving the overall availability of services by controlling connections/ timing for data signaling in a wireless telecommunications Ranta [0064] – by avoiding keeping radio resources actively occupied when they are not needed.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1, except that claim 2 is in device claim format (M2M SS, element 110 in Fig.4 in Kang).
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1, except that claim 3 is recited from the transmitting radio node perspective (M2M BS, element 120 in Fig.4 in Kang).
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 3, except that claim 4 is in a device claim format (M2M BS, element 120 in Fig.4 in Kang).
Regarding claim 5:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Kang further discloses the receiving radio receives the interruption indication indicates an interruption period, during which transmission of data signaling may be interrupted (receiving access interruption message and stopping data transmission during an access restriction time period, e.g., interruption period [0009] or receiving communication interruption indication signal for not allowing data communications [0095] or receiving access-deny command signal including data communication interruption indication signal for not allowing data communication [0059]).
Regarding claim 6:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Kang further discloses the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication indicating signaling to be received (receiving data communication interruption indication signal that includes an action code, e.g., signaling to be received, not allowing data communication corresponding to specific service flow with base station, e.g., radio transmitting node [0059]).
Regarding claim 9:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Kang further discloses the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication that is carried by the data signaling (receiving data communication interruption indication signal being piggybacked, e.g., carried, on downlink data transmitted from base station to SS, e.g., receiving radio node, [0049]).
Regarding claim 10:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Kang further discloses the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication that is separate from the data signaling (receiving data communication interruption indication signal being piggybacked, e.g., carried, on signaling header, e.g., not on data signaling [0049]).
Regarding claim 11:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Kang further discloses receiving radio node receives the interruption indication that is one of a plurality of interruption indications (data communication interruption indication signals according to access-deny command signal, are transmitted in steps 517 and 527 in Fig.5).
Regarding claim 12:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Kang further teaches the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication that is included in the last allocation unit carrying data signaling (receiving data communication interruption indication signal for service flow before access restriction period, [0049] upon arrival of access restriction time [steps 416 and 452]).
Therefore, it would be obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive the interruption indication before the access restriction time/ interruption period, or in the last allocation unit carrying data signaling; thus enabling the receiving radio node to interrupt uplink data communications for a service flow based on such indication (para.97).
Regarding claim 13:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Kang further discloses the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication that is represented by control signaling. e.g. on a control channel or interruption channel (receiving data communication interruption indication signal being piggybacked, e.g., carried, on control message, e.g., not on data signaling [0049]).
Regarding claims 16-17:
Claims 16-17 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 5-6, except that claims 5-6 are from the perspective of a transmitting radio node.
Regarding claims 20-22:
Claims 20-22 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 9-11, except that claims 20-22 are from the perspective of a transmitting radio node.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ranta, as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, respectively, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20200120645 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 7:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2, but does not disclose the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication indicates a preemption; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Park’s teachings as below.
Park, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication indicates a preemption (receiving interruption information indicating whether a previous transmission interval prior to the transmission interval including the interruption information is preempted, [0011], lines 12-17).
Therefore, it would be obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive the interruption indication indicating a preemption; thus efficiently transmitting data by efficiently determining radio resources, which are defined by the preemption of the interruption information (Park [0012]).
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 7, except that claim 18 is from the perspective of a transmitting radio node.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ranta, as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, respectively, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20210219276 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 8:
Kang in view of Ranta discloses all limitations of claim 2, but does not disclose the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication that is represented by a signaling sequence, in particular a reference signaling sequence; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Liu’s teachings as below.
Liu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the receiving radio node receives the interruption indication that is represented by a signaling sequence, in particular a reference signaling sequence (receiving uplink cancellation indication {UL CI} [0039], wherein cancelation indication signaling can be carried in physical DCI on specific signal sequence [0034]).
Therefore, it would be obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be able to receive the interruption indication being represented by a signaling sequence – so as for the receiving node to cancel the transmission on preempted resource associated with the interruption indication Liu [0034]; thus avoiding potential conflicts with other uplink transmissions Liu [0036].
Regarding claims 19:
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 8, except that claim 19 is from the perspective of a transmitting radio node.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2429
Prosecution Insights