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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2-27-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-27-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please note that the limitation: "receiving a release message or a suspend message in a first cell of the UE, wherein the first cell of the UE is not a last used cell of the UE” is kind of misleading. By receiving a release message or a suspend message in a first cell of the UE, converts the first cell of the UE in the last used cell of the UE, since it was used for reception of the release message or the suspend message. What appears that the limitation is trying to claim is that for the core network the first cell of the UE is not stored as the last used cell of the UE. According the specification of the present application in par. 0059, 0061 the specification admits that it is known that “it possible for inactive UEs to move around in an area without notifying the network”, thereby, the novelty it is not in the situation or problem, but in the solution to the problem. Unfortunately, the present claims explain more the situation than the actual solution to the problem. For example, the specification of the present application discloses in par. 0062, 0067-0071, 0114 how to solve the problem; however, the claims at most require receiving a release/suspend message and monitoring a signal and paging message based on the signal, the “wherein” are considered as indicated in MPEP 2111.04 just disclosing the intended use of the last used cell and/or intended result. It is unclear in the claim how a condition can indicate that the last used cell of the UE is stored at the CN and how that may affect the last used cell, since the last used cell is never used in the method, it just described that it is different than the first cell. The examiner recommends to add context of the spec. par. 0070 to clarify the limitation.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed to claim 47, Lin discloses using release/suspend messages in a first cell (see col. 13, lines 25-29). Please note that although the claims are interpreted in view of the specification it is improper to bring details of the specification such as par. 0114 into the claim. As to the arguments directed to Xi, please see the interpretation of “not a last used cell of the UE” in the prior paragraph. Again, the examiner suggests to the applicant that instead of claiming the condition, to focus on what the device do when presented with the condition.
Please see below for additional information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 47-49, 52, 56, 60, 62, 64-65, 67-68, 70, 73 and 77-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites the limitation “indicates that the last used cell of the UE is stored at the CN”, it is unclear how the description of a not used cell can indicate the information. Please explain.
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) 47-49, 52, 56, 60, 62, 64-65, 67-68, 70, 73 and 77-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin 11637670 in view of Xi 20150080034.
As to claim 47, Lin discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) [116], comprising:
receiving a release message or a suspend message in a first cell of the UE
(see col. 13, lines 25-29);
monitoring, a signal [CSI-RS or TRS] associated with a paging message for the UE based on UE grouping configuration [please note that a relationship or association fails to differentiate from the prior art] (see col. 2, lines 17-23; col. 14, lines 28-39), whereby the UE monitor the paging message based on the signal (see abstract); wherein the UE monitors the signal (col. 11, lines 36-41; col. 14, lines 28-39). Lin fails to disclose in a last used cell of the UE. However, Lin discloses that the UE can be stationary (see col. 5, lines 55-61); thereby, wherein the UE monitors the signal in a last used cell of the UE. Also, Lin fails to disclose wherein the last used cell of the UE is not a last cell where the UE has received either a release message or a suspend message. In an analogous art, Xi discloses the cell last connected by the terminal is a cell accessed by the terminal before the terminal releases the radio connection (see par. 0056); thereby, is the last used cell of the UE not being the first cell where the UE has received either the release message or the suspend message and the same situation will indicate the same information such as that the last used cell of the UE has not been updated with a serving cell of the UE at a core network (CN), and indicates that the last used cell of the UE stored at the CN. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that UE are required to monitor signals in order to work and communicate, including in the described situation. Additionally, the described situation fails to modify the monitoring step in any meaningful or measurable way; thereby, the UE will bring the same predictable result of monitoring signals with or without the described situation.
As to claims 48, 65 and 68, Lin discloses wherein when the UE is in an inactive mode, the UE monitor the signal in all cells within a same radio access network based Notification Area (RNA) [the paging messages are sent by a MME to all gNodeBs in a tracking area and those gNodeBs in a tracking area are transmitting the same paging message.] (col. 11, lines 36-41; col. 14, lines 28-39). Lin fails to use the same name for the area, but it obvious that a tracking area is equivalent to a radio access network based Notification Area (RNA). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that both areas are equivalent since they both are used to group cells for managing the network.
As to claim 49, Lin discloses the method of claim 47, wherein when the UE is in an inactive mode, the UE monitors the RS in a number of cells within a same radio access network based Notification Area (RNA) as a last used cell of the UE [configuration includes desired cells that it is expected to receive RS] (see col. 13, lines 6-12). As indicated in the 112 rejection is unclear the scope of “as a last used cell of the UE”. Lin fails to use the same name for the area, but it obvious that a tracking area is equivalent to a radio access network based Notification Area (RNA). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that both areas are equivalent since they both are used to group cells for managing the network.
Regarding claims 60 and 73, are rejected for the same reasons as shown in claim 47 and also Lin discloses the memory [230]; and a processor [340]
As to claim 52, Lin discloses the method of claim 47, wherein the UE monitors the RS in a cell of the UE (see col. 2, lines 17-23; col. 14, lines 28-39). Lin fails to disclose monitors the signal a most frequently used cell of the UE. However, Lin discloses that the UE can be stationary (see col. 5, lines 55-61). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the natural outcome of a stationary UE is to monitor a most frequently used cell of the UE, since it does not move, it will be the same cell.
As to claims 56, 62, 64, 67 and 70, the limitation “wherein a last used cell of the UE is not the first cell where the UE has received a suspend message” is a condition. And, the condition indicates “that an ID of the cell is not able to be transmitted to a core network (CN) to update the cell as the first used cell”. It is noted that the condition does not modify the method in any measurable way, limitations must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a condition. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the method would perform equally well with or without the limitation since the method will perform equally well.
As to claim 77, Lin discloses the method of claim 47, further comprising: performing a release procedure or suspend procedure based on the release message or the suspend message in response to a reception of a physical layer acknowledgement (see col. 13, lines 25-29; col. 19, lines 35-46).
As to claim 78, Lin discloses the UE of claim 60, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform a release procedure or suspend procedure based on the release message or the suspend message in response to a reception of a physical layer acknowledgement (see col. 13, lines 25-29; col. 19, lines 35-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights