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 Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 12/3/2025.
Claims 16-19, 21-23, 27-32, 34 and 35 have been amended. Claim 36 has been newly added. Claim 20 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 16 and 23 adds non-functional descriptive material1. No action occurs because “the at least one second request message comprises a group communication mode identity included in the first request message, or a traffic type included in the first request message, or both” and no other step refers back to the “wherein” clause. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that wherein the at least one second request message comprises “data”. Uusitalo clearly discloses data is received. (see Fig. 2 [New sensing report based on new parameters], Claim 4 and Claim 5) This interpretation is consistent with the note provided to the Applicant in the Non-Final rejection for claim 20.
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.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "group communication mode" in 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should it state “group communication mode identity”? If that was the case, it would then be included in section 13 below.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uusitalo et al. (US-9,913,248 hereinafter, Uusitalo).
Regarding claim 16, Uusitalo teaches a base station (Fig. 6), comprising:
at least one memory; (Fig. 6 [14]) and
at least one processor (Fig. 6 [22]) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the base station to:
receive a first request message indicating a group communication mode of a first User Equipment (UE); (Fig. 2 [Guidance] and Col. 5 lines 46-59)
identify a group of second UEs associated with the first request message; (Col. 10 lines 7-9 “triggering, by the network node, a transmission of a polling message to a specific group of wireless transmitting nodes among a plurality of groups” and lines 36-37 “transmitting to a set of nodes that have not been heard from the longest”)
transmit a paging message to the identified group to transfer collected data; (Col. 10 lines 4-9 “triggering, by the network node, a transmission of a polling message to a specific group of wireless transmitting nodes among a plurality of groups”)
receive at least one second request message from at least one second UE of the identified group (Fig. 2 [New sensing report based on new parameters] and Claims 4 & 5), wherein the at least one second request message comprises a group communication mode identity included in the first request message, or a traffic type included in the first request message, or both; (Non-functional descriptive material - no action occurs because “the at least one second request message comprises a group communication mode identity included in the first request message, or a traffic type included in the first request message, or both” and no other step refers back to the “wherein” clause. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that wherein the at least one second request message comprises “data”. Uusitalo clearly discloses data is received. (see Fig. 2 [New sensing report based on new parameters], Claim 4 and Claim 5) and
establish a data connection with each of the at least one second UE to receive the collected data. (Col. 3 line 50 through Col. 4 line 17)
Regarding claim 23, the limitations of claim 23 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 16.
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.
Claims 17-19, 22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uusitalo in view of Liao (US-9,094,779 hereinafter, Liao).
Regarding claim 17, Uusitalo teaches the limitations of claim 16 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein to transmit the paging message to the identified group, at least one processor is further configured to cause the base station to transmit a NG paging message to at least one radio access network (“RAN”) node associated with a second UE, wherein the NG paging message comprises a paging cause value that indicates a Mobile-Originated (“MO”) data retrieval.
In an analogous art, Liao teaches a method of group based MTC messaging (Abstract) that includes transmitting a paging message to the identified group (Col. 5 lines 4-13), the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the base station to transmit a NG paging message to at least one radio access network (“RAN”) node associated with a second UE (Col. 13 lines 26-43 and Fig. 6 [S601]), wherein the NG paging message comprises a paging cause value that indicates a Mobile-Originated (“MO”) data retrieval. (Col. 4 lines 8-30)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Uusitalo after modifying it to incorporate the ability to send group pages to MTC devices with notification of a Mobile-Originated data retrieval of Liao since it enables coordinating when the MTCs connect to the base station in order to mitigate congestion. (Col. 10 lines 18-29)
Regarding claim 18, Uusitalo in view of Liao teaches wherein the NG paging message further indicates a first traffic type included in the first request message. (Liao Col. 4 lines 1-18 “trigger warning type”)
Regarding claim 19, Uusitalo in view of Liao teaches wherein the first request message comprises a first group communication mode identity (Liao Col. 3 lines 55-62), wherein a UE identity parameter of the NG paging message is set to the first group communication mode identity. (Liao Col. 4 line 31 through Col. 5 line 3)
Regarding claim 22, Uusitalo in view of Liao teaches wherein the first request message comprises a paging request received from a RAN node serving the first UE. (Liao Col. 4 lines 13-18)
Regarding claims 24-27, the limitations of claims 24-27 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 17-19 and 22.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uusitalo in view of Liao and LG Electronics (found on IDS).
Regarding claim 29, Uusitalo teaches an apparatus (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6), comprising:
at least one memory; (Fig. 6 [14]) and
at least one processor (Fig. 6 [22]) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive a first request message indicating a group communication mode of a first User Equipment (UE); (Fig. 2 [Guidance] and Col. 5 lines 46-59)
determine a group communication mode from the first request message; (Col. 5 lines 46-59 and Col. 10 lines 7-9 “triggering, by the network node, a transmission of a polling message to a specific group of wireless transmitting nodes among a plurality of groups”)
receive a paging message from the core network entity request to page a group of UEs to transfer collected data (Fig. 4 [410-420 & 440]), wherein the paging message comprises at least one of the group communication mode identity and the traffic type; (Non-functional descriptive material - no action occurs because “the paging message comprises at least one of the group communication mode identity and the traffic type”) and
transmit a Radio Resource Control (RRC) paging message to the group of UEs requesting the establishment of resources to send the collected data (Col. 10 lines 4-9 “triggering, by the network node, a transmission of a polling message to a specific group of wireless transmitting nodes among a plurality of groups”, Col. 6 lines 21-23 and Col. 7 lines 13-14)
Uusitalo differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the RRC paging message indicates at least one of the group communication mode identity and the traffic type.
In an analogous art, Liao teaches a method of group based MTC messaging (Abstract) that includes transmit a Radio Resource Control (RRC) paging message to the group of UEs requesting the establishment of resources to send the collected data (Col. 4 lines 8-30 i.e. mobile originated transmission), wherein the RRC paging message indicates at least one of the group communication mode identity and the traffic type. (Col. 4 lines 31-37 and Col. 9 line 53 through Col. 10 line 1 i.e. the UE recognizes whether it is a member of the group paging message based on the “message ID” or can ignore the page
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Uusitalo after modifying it to incorporate the ability to include group communication mode identities in paging requests of Liao since it enables ensuring the correct devices knows they are being paged.
Uusitalo in view of Liao differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting receive a first request message from a first User Equipment (UE) requesting the establishment of resources to send collected data and transmit a message to a core network entity requesting to page a group of UEs, wherein the message comprises a group communication mode identity included in the first request message, or a traffic type included in the first request message, or both.
In an analogous art, LG teaches a method and system for group paging of MTC devices (Page 1 Introduction) that includes the ability to receive a first request message from a first User Equipment (UE) requesting the establishment of resources to send collected data (Page 2 Section 2.3(b) “MTC user initiates the group paging in order to wake the MTC devices up for retrieving the collected data”) and transmit a message to a core network entity requesting to page a group of UEs (Page 2 Section 2.3(b) “Then, the MME entity which has a same group identity contained in retrieval request from MTC server/user is able to page the MTC group as in legacy system”), wherein the message comprises a group communication mode identity included in the first request message, or a traffic type included in the first request message, or both. (Page 2 Section 2.3(b) “Then, the MME entity which has a same group identity contained in retrieval request from MTC server/user is able to page the MTC group as in legacy system” note: still non-functional descriptive material)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Uusitalo in view of Liao after modifying it to incorporate the ability to have a UE request the collection of data of LG since it enables a user to trigger the paging of sensors to collection information on demand.
Regarding claim 30, Uusitalo in view of Liao and LG teaches wherein to transmit the message to the core network entity, at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to transmit a paging request in response to determining the group communication mode. (LG Page 2 Section 2.3(b) “MTC user initiates the group paging in order to wake the MTC devices up for retrieving the collected data”)
Regarding claim 31, Uusitalo in view of Liao LG teaches wherein the paging request comprises the group communication mode identity (Liao Col. 3 lines 55-62), wherein a UE identity parameter of the RRC paging message is set to the first group communication mode identity. (Liao Col. 4 line 31 through Col. 5 line 3)
Regarding claim 32, Uusitalo in view of Liao and LG teaches receive an NG paging message from an Access and Mobility management Function (AMF) (Liao Fig. 1 [106] i.e. the Examiner sees the MME as being equivalent) associated with a first UE (Liao Col. 13 lines 26-43 and Fig. 6 [S601]), wherein the NG paging message comprises a paging cause value that indicates a Mobile-Originated (“MO”) data retrieval. (Liao Col. 4 lines 8-30)
Regarding claim 33, Uusitalo in view of Liao and LG teaches wherein the NG paging message further indicates a first traffic type included in the first request message. (Liao Col. 4 lines 1-18 “trigger warning type”)
Regarding claim 34, Uusitalo in view of Liao and LG teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to transmit a RAN paging message to at least one second RAN entity (Liao Fig. 1 [107 & 111]) in response to receiving the paging message from the core network entity (Liao Fig. 1 [103a]), wherein the at least one second RAN entity is part of a RAN notification area associated with a non-connected UE of the group of UEs (descriptive material of a device that is not the “Apparatus”), wherein the RAN paging message comprises a paging cause value that indicates a Mobile-Originated “MO” data retrieval (Liao Col. 4 lines 8-30), wherein the RAN paging message further indicates a first traffic type included in the first request message. (Liao Col. 4 lines 1-18 “trigger warning type”)
Regarding claim 35, Uusitalo in view of Liao and LG teaches the ability to perform an RRC connection establishment procedure with at least one second UE of the group of UEs, (Liao Col. 12 lines 41-46) and
receive collected data from the at least one second UE. (Liao Fig. 6 [S604])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 28 are 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: The Examiner was unable to find the combination of claims 16 + 21 or 23 + 28 in the prior art. The Examiner would point to WO2022/236300A1 as being closely related to the subject matter found in claims 21/28 (see [00172]), however the earliest effective filing date is after that of the instant application and is accordingly, disqualified from being prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-102158959B to Fang discloses using a group ID to recognize a paging message is directed to a group of MTC devices.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
1 The Applicant is reminded that structure defines how an apparatus differs from prior art apparatuses and when no difference in structure is defined, the assumption is made that the prior art structure meets the limitations.
The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff' d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). This printed matter doctrine is not strictly limited to “printed” materials. Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032. More specifically, “a claim limitation is directed to printed matter ‘if it claims the content of information.' ” Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032 (quoting In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In method cases, the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).