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 with respect to claims 45 and 48-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 45 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al(US 2022/0183101 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Jang ‘101 teaches, a method, in a network node configured to communicate with a wireless device ([0022], [0030], [0034] and Figs. 1-2, base station configured to communicate with UE) the method comprising:
transmitting, to the wireless device, a control command in the form of a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) ([0030], [0114], [0116] and Fig. 2A, the base station transmitting a MAC CE (change DRX MAC CE) to the UE)
wherein the control command is associated with one or more conditions that determine whether the wireless device is to trigger a starting or restarting of an inactivity timer after receiving the control command ([0110], [0115], [0134] and Fig. 2, the MAC CE transmitted from the base station to the UE indicating whether to start or restart DRX short cycle timer or specific inactivity timer, and the UE starting or restarting the timer after receiving the MAC CE).
Regarding claim 50, Jang ‘101 teaches, a network node comprising radio circuitry configured to communicate with wireless devices and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the radio circuitry ([0147]-[0151] and Fig. 2D, base station configured to communicate with a UE comprising RF processor and multi connectivity processors )and configured to carry out a method according to claim 45( see rejection of claim 45 above).
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 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 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 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang ‘101 in view of Malkamaki et al (US 9386625 B2).
Regarding claim 48, Jang ‘101 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the method comprises configuring the wireless device, prior to said transmitting, with one or more conditions comprising an indication of one or more types of medium access control control elements, MAC CEs that should not trigger starting or restarting of the inactivity timer by the wireless device.
Malkamaki ‘625 teaches, wherein the method comprises configuring the wireless device, prior to said transmitting( col 7 lines 45-54, configuring the apparatus 10 such that reception of a MAC PDU containing only MAC CE does not start the inactivity timer), with one or more conditions comprising an indication of one or more types of medium access control control elements, MAC CEs that should not trigger starting or restarting of the inactivity timer by the wireless device(col 7 lines 36-54, apparatus 10 can be configured such that reception of the TA command MAC CE alone does not start the inactivity timer, as shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Jang ‘101 by incorporating the teaching of Malkamaki ‘625, since such modification enables to minimize UE power consumption while still updating the TA, as suggested by Malkamaki ‘625(abstract).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang ‘101 in view of Yi et al(US 2021/0203468 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Jang ‘101 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the method comprises selecting one of a plurality of predetermined bandwidth parts (BWPs) in which to transmit the control command, based on whether the wireless device is to trigger starting or restarting the inactivity timer in response to the control command according to the one or more conditions associated with the control command.
Yi ‘468 teaches, wherein the method comprises selecting one of a plurality of predetermined bandwidth parts (BWPs) in which to transmit the control command ([0276], [0383],[0434], base station configuring a wireless device with a set of BWPs(e.g. four BWP) and selecting specific BWP active BWP), based on whether the wireless device is to trigger starting or restarting the inactivity timer in response to the control command according to the one or more conditions associated with the control command([0384-[0386], [0437], [0488] the selection of BWP for transmitting control command being associated with the BWP inactivity timer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Jang ‘101 by incorporating the teaching of Yi ‘468, since such modification would enable a wireless device to efficiently utilize its battery power resources, as suggested by Yi ‘468([0440]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-44 and 51 are allowed.
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 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 AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474