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 .
The office action is a response to Applicant’s Amendment filed April 6, 2026.
Claims 16, 26 and 27 have been amended.
Claims 18 and 32 have been cancelled.
Claims 22 and 32 had previously been cancelled.
Claims 36-39 have been added.
Claims 16, 17, 19-21, 23-31 and 33-39 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner asserts that “Li” (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220417900), which had been used to reject the limitations of now cancelled Claim 18, “wherein the paging message is a Radio Resource Control (“RRC”) paging message, and the paging extension is included in the RRC paging message“, fairly suggests these limitations, in view of other relevant citations in “Li”. While the citation from Li in the previous office action (e.g., ¶ [0058], FIG. 2 shows an example transmission of multiple paging configurations from a network (e.g., RAN node) to the UE. The multiple paging configurations as described in Section I can be transmitted in the SIB or a dedicated RRC signal) does not explicitly indicate a relation to paging enhancement (extension) information within RRC, Examiner is also citing ¶ [0191], which recites an “example RRC message” that indicates “paging enhancement parameters” (such as “kinactive”) by the RAN node.
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.
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.
Claims 16, 19, 21, 24-27, 30, 31, 36, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nader et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220279479 A1 (hereinafter Nader) in view of Shih et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200322918 A1 (hereinafter Shih), and in view of Ang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210321330 A1 (hereinafter Ang), and in view of Li et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220417900 A1 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 16, Nader discloses a User Equipment (“UE”) (e.g., FIG. 12, device 1200) comprising: a memory (e.g., FIG. 12, processor 1210); and a processor coupled with the memory (e.g., FIG. 12, memory 1220/1230), and configured to cause the UE to: receive paging Downlink Control Information (“DCI”) with a cyclic redundancy check (“CRC”) scrambled by a Paging Radio Network Temporary Identifier (“P-RNTI”) (e.g., ¶ [0089], UE detects paging DCI (e.g., DCI 1_0 with paging radio network temporary identifier (P-RNTI)-scrambled cyclic redundancy check (CRC))), the paging DCI scheduling a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (“PDSCH”) transmission (e.g., ¶ [0075], DCI formats 1_0 and 1_1 are used to convey PDSCH scheduling); receive a paging message in the PDSCH transmission (e.g., ¶ [0036], the paging message can be transmitted on a PDSCH); and identify a paging extension for the UE in the paging DCI or the paging message (e.g., ¶ [0114], in the 3GPP Rel-15 paging DCI, additional bits or indications can be used for possible extensions or additional subgroups).
Nader does not expressly disclose UE sending a message to a network node, the message indicating that the UE supports paging extensions, and receiving a confirmation message from the network node, the confirmation message notifying the UE to expect paging extensions.
Shih discloses transmit, to a base station, a message indicating that the UE supports paging extensions (e.g., ¶ [0125], the UE may transmit the information regarding its capability to support a specific UE behavior (e.g., performing the enhanced paging monitoring method as described in one or more of various implementations of the present disclosure) to the BS (e.g., gNB) or serving cell); receive, from the base station, a confirmation message notifying the UE to expect paging extensions (e.g., ¶ [0125], Upon the BS (e.g., gNB) or serving cell receives the information (e.g., UE Capability Information) indicating that the UE supports the specific UE behavior and/or the unlicensed RAT, the BS (e.g., gNB) or serving cell may configure the UE to perform the supported UE behavior and/or unlicensed RAT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of system and UE that supports paging extensions, as disclosed by Nader, with the disclosure of UE notifying network of it support for an enhancement or extension of a paging method, as disclosed by Shih. The motivation to combine would have been to support paging enhancement in wireless communication systems (Shih: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
Nader in view of Shih does not expressly disclose wherein the paging DCI and the PDSCH transmission are separate from a legacy paging DCI and a legacy PDSCH transmission used for paging UE devices without paging extension.
Ang discloses wherein the paging DCI and the PDSCH transmission are separate from a legacy paging DCI and a legacy PDSCH transmission used for paging UE devices without paging extension (e.g., ¶ [0056], Paging enhancements are desired to reduce unnecessary UE paging receptions, without impacting legacy UEs; e.g., ¶ [0060], new paging downlink control information (DCI) signaling (e.g., a separate resource from legacy paging DCI) [i.e., suggests separate DCI format for extended/enhanced paging and legacy paging]; e.g., ¶ [0064], FIG. 6 illustrates an enhanced paging DCI design/configuration that is similar to the configuration shown in FIG. 5. In the configuration of FIG. 6, however, a group of UEs on the same PO 44 that would monitor paging DCI with the same P-RNTI is partitioned. In other words, UEs belonging to the same PO 44 may be partitioned into multiple groups (e.g., associated with different P-RNTIs). Because of the partitioning, in the configuration shown in FIG. 6, there is a reduced likelihood of PDSCH decoding. Thus, a PDSCH 66 in FIG. 6 is represented differently from the PDSCH 46 shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 [i.e., suggests separate PDSCH format for extended/enhanced paging and legacy paging; for the record, separate transmissions for legacy and extended/enhanced paging would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, as may be seen a prior art example, Wong et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210321360 A1 (e.g., FIG. 6, ¶ [0092], if the eNB wishes to page both a legacy UE and an EDT UE [which may have new DCI format] in the same paging occasion, it can… send separate paging messages, one based on P-RNTI and one based on EDT-RNTI)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of UE notifying network of its support for an enhancement or extension of a paging method, as disclosed by Nader in view of Shih, with the disclosure of separate PDSCH and DCI transmissions for legacy paging and enhanced paging, as disclosed by Ang. The motivation to combine would have been to support for idle mode UE power saving in new radio systems (Ang: e.g. ¶ [0002]).
Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang does not expressly disclose wherein the paging message is a Radio Resource Control (“RRC”) paging message, and the paging extension is included in the RRC paging message.
Li discloses wherein the paging message is a Radio Resource Control (“RRC”) paging message, and the paging extension is included in the RRC paging message (e.g., ¶ [0058], FIG. 2 shows an example transmission of multiple paging configurations from a network (e.g., RAN node) to the UE. The multiple paging configurations as described in Section I can be transmitted in the SIB or a dedicated RRC signal; e.g., ¶ [0191] In some embodiments, the RAN node can implicitly indicate a support for paging enhancement if the RAN node indicates paging enhancement parameters such as k value (shown in bold italicized text in the example SIB below) for the PFoffsetidle calculation in the SIB or if the RAN node indicates paging enhancement parameters such kinactive (shown in bold italicized text in the example RRC message below)…. For the PFoffsetidle calculation… K INTEGER(0…MaxValue) OPTIONAL,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of UE that supports indicates paging extensions in a downlink message, as disclosed by Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang, with the disclosure of paging configurations being in a RRC message, as disclosed by Li. The motivation to combine would have been to support paging and network selection techniques (Li: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
Regarding Claim 19, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 16.
Nader discloses wherein the paging extension is an integer included in the paging DCI, within fourteen bits assigned to an eight-bit Short Messages field and a six-bit Reserved Bits field (e.g., ¶ [0114], In the 3GPP Rel-15 paging DCI (i.e., format 1_0), there are six (6) reserved bits that can be used for indicating subgroups and/or other features described above, such as if the paging message is intended for idle or inactive UEs. In 3GPP Rel-15 these 6 bits are reserved for or defined for future use [i.e., 6-bit Reserved bits field]. As such these bits or fields are otherwise reserved... In addition to the explicit reserved bits in the 3GPP Rel-15 paging DCI, additional bits or indications can be used for possible extensions or additional subgroups. For example, if only scheduling information is included in paging DCI, there are also eight (8) bits reserved for short messages [i.e., eight-bit Short Messages field]).
Regarding Claim 21, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 19.
Nader discloses wherein the fourteen bits are partitioned to signal multiple integers as paging extensions to multiple UE devices (e.g., ¶ [0114], In the 3GPP Rel-15 paging DCI (i.e., format 1_0), there are six (6) reserved bits that can be used for indicating subgroups [i.e., subgroups of devices receive configurations), and wherein the paging message indicates which of the integers is the paging extension for the UE (e.g., ¶ [0114], In addition to the explicit reserved bits in the 3GPP Rel-15 paging DCI, additional bits or indications can be used for possible extensions or additional subgroups).
Regarding Claim 24, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 16.
Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang does not expressly disclose receiving the paging DCI in a monitoring occasion separate from a set of monitoring occasions defined for receiving legacy paging DCIs.
Ang discloses receive the paging DCI in a monitoring occasion separate from a set of monitoring occasions defined for receiving legacy paging DCIs (e.g., ¶ [0060], new paging downlink control information (DCI) signaling (e.g., a separate resource from legacy paging DCI) [i.e., suggests separate monitoring for DCI format for extended/enhanced paging and legacy paging]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of UE notifying network of its support for an enhancement or extension of a paging method, as disclosed by Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang, with the disclosure of separately monitoring for legacy paging and enhanced paging, as disclosed by Ang. The motivation to combine would have been to support for idle mode UE power saving in new radio systems (Ang: e.g. ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 25, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 16.
Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang does not expressly disclose legacy paging DCI comprises a legacy DCI format with a CRC scrambled by a legacy P-RNTI; the paging DCI comprises a new format that differs from the legacy DCI format; and the P-RNTI differs from the legacy P-RNTI.
Ang discloses wherein the legacy paging DCI comprises a legacy DCI format with a CRC scrambled by a legacy P-RNTI; the paging DCI comprises a new format that differs from the legacy DCI format; and the P-RNTI differs from the legacy P-RNTI (e.g., ¶ [0060], method utilizes a short message (e.g., a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a paging radio network temporary identifier (P-RNTI)). Reserved bits in DCI format 1_0 for the short message may be used. A second method utilizes a paging message (e.g., a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled by a PDCCH with CRC scrambled by a P-RNTI). A third method utilizes new paging downlink control information (DCI) signaling (e.g., a separate resource from legacy paging DCI) with a TRS/CSI-RS occasion configuration and the identifier for the paging/UE group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of UE notifying network of its support for an enhancement or extension of a paging method, as disclosed by Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang, with the disclosure of separately monitoring for legacy paging and enhanced paging, as disclosed by Ang. The motivation to combine would have been to support for idle mode UE power saving in new radio systems (Ang: e.g. ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 26, the claim is directed to a method of a UE, the method comprising operations that are functionally similar to those performed by the UE of claim 16. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 16 shall be applied to claim 26.
Regarding Claim 27, the claim is directed to a base station for wireless communication, the method comprising information exchanged between the two ends that is similar to that which is exchanged between UE and base station in claim 16. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 16 shall be applied to claim 26.
Regarding Claim 30, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the base station of claim 27.
The functional limitations of Claim 30 are similar to claim 19. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 19 shall be applied to claim 30.
Regarding Claim 31, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the base station of claim 30.
The functional limitations of Claim 31 are similar to claim 21. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 21 shall be applied to claim 31.
Regarding Claim 36, the claim is directed to a method performed by a base station, the method comprising information exchanged between the two ends that is similar to that which is exchanged between UE and base station in claim 16. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 16 shall be applied to claim 36.
Regarding Claim 38, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 36.
The functional limitations of Claim 38 are similar to claim 30. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 30 shall be applied to claim 38.
Regarding Claim 39, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 36.
The functional limitations of Claim 39 are similar to claim 31. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 31 shall be applied to claim 39.
Claims 17, 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li, in further view of Chun, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220116908 A1.
Regarding Claim 17, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 16.
Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a message indicating network support for paging extensions prior to sending the message indicating that the UE supports paging extensions.
Chun discloses wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a message indicating network support for paging extensions prior to sending the message indicating that the UE supports paging extensions (e.g., ¶ [0629], field [in IE message] indicates whether the network supports transmission of paging extension information through a paging message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of UE that supports paging extensions and UE notifying network of paging enhancement support, as disclosed by Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li, with the disclosure of network notifying UE of its support for paging extension, as disclosed by Chun. The motivation to combine would have been to efficiently receive a plurality of paging signals in a wireless communication system (Chun: e.g. ¶ [0006]).
Regarding Claim 28, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the base station of claim 27.
The functional limitations of Claim 28 are similar to claim 17. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 17 shall be applied to claim 28.
Regarding Claim 37, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 36.
The functional limitations of Claim 36 are similar to claim 28. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 28 shall be applied to claim 36.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li, in further view of Kim et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220159669 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 23, Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 16.
Nader discloses paging extension included in the paging DCI, with bits assigned to an eight-bit Short Messages field and a six-bit Reserved Bits field (e.g., ¶ [0114], In the 3GPP Rel-15 paging DCI (i.e., format 1_0), there are six (6) reserved bits that can be used for indicating subgroups and/or other features described above, such as if the paging message is intended for idle or inactive UEs. In 3GPP Rel-15 these 6 bits are reserved for or defined for future use [i.e., 6-bit Reserved bits field]. As such these bits or fields are otherwise reserved... In addition to the explicit reserved bits in the 3GPP Rel-15 paging DCI, additional bits or indications can be used for possible extensions or additional subgroups. For example, if only scheduling information is included in paging DCI, there are also eight (8) bits reserved for short messages [i.e., eight-bit Short Messages field]).
Nader does not expressly disclose the Short Messages field being value “00”.
Kim discloses wherein the paging DCI includes a binary value "00" in a Short Message Indicator field (e.g., ¶ [0114], a number of UEs monitoring a paging occasion may be reduced by including a group indication via an unused bit field in DCI1_0. In some embodiments, at least 6 bits may be available in a short message indicator field of DCI1_0. As noted above, current implementations of DCI1_0 with P-RNTI include a 2-bit shortmessageindicator field that may indicate whether PDSCH for paging and/or a short message is sent or not. For example, a short message indicator bit field value for 00 may be reserved, a short message indicator bit field value of 01 may indicate only scheduling information for paging is present in the DCI, a short message indicator bit field value of 10 may indicate only scheduling information for a short message is present in the DCI, and a short message indicator bit field value of 11 may indicate both scheduling information for paging and a short message are present in the DCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of UE that supports indicates paging extension reserved for short messages, as disclosed by Nader in view of Shih and in view of Ang and in view of Li, with the disclosure of defined bit values and purposes for the short message indication field, as disclosed by Kim. The motivation to combine would have been to support group-based paging indications (Kim: e.g. ¶ [0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 20, dependent from claim 19, and claim 30, dependent from claim 27, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to reference a table to convert the integer to at least one information element.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights