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 filed on 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the Applicant argues that:
Claims 20 and 21 recite limitations that have not been disclosed, taught, or even suggested by the cited prior art documents. For example,
Xu describes a one-to-one mapping between each bit in the DCI and a respective UE
group, as outlined in paragraphs [0060] and [0064]-[0065]. Specifically, Xu discloses that the
DCI may include a short message indicator, where one or more bits in the short message field
are respectively assigned to different UE groups. For example, when two bits are used, each bit
corresponds to a respective UE group, such that a bit pattern "01" indicates that the first UE
group is paged. From this explicit example, it is evident that Xu adopts a one-bit-to-one-UE-
group mapping scheme. As a consequence, when the number of UE subgroups increases, the
DCI payload must scale proportionally, thereby increasing DCI overhead.
On the other hand, Claims 20 and 21 of the present application introduce a
fundamentally different one-to-many mapping mechanism, in which each bit in the paging
indication DCI indicates at least one group of UEs or more than one group of UEs. As supported
by paragraphs [0051] and [0052] of the specification, this design enables a single bit to
represent multiple UE groups, thereby significantly reducing signaling overhead while
maintaining paging selectivity. Such a one-to-many bit-to-group mapping is neither disclosed
nor suggested in Xu, and represents a clear structural departure from Xu's one-to-one approach.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 20 and 21 recites the limitations “wherein each bit in the paging indication field indicates at least one group of UEs, or more than one groups of UEs or more than one groups of UEs”, lines 5-6. The claim limitation includes language that suggest or makes optional (e.g., “at least” and “or”) the features of each bit field (e.g., a single bit) designed to represent more than one group of UEs (i.e., multiple groups of UEs), and thus based on the broadest reasonable interpretation each bit may indicate “one group of UEs”.
In this instance, Xu teaches that each bit indicates at least “one group of UEs”, for example, Xu in paragraph [0064] discloses “one or more bits in the short message field and/or reserved bits field may be used to provide paging indications for one or more UE groups” and paragraph [0065], Xu discloses “different bits in the short message field and/or reserved bits field may be used to provide respective paging indications for different UE groups. In this case, a bit in the short message field and/or the reserved bit field may indicate whether a respective UE group is paged or not paged”. Therefore, Xu teaches that each bit may indicate at least one group of UEs as required by the claim.
Additionally, the Applicant argues:
Claims 20 and 21 introduce a dedicated Paging Indication RNTI (PI-RNTI),
which is specifically configured to differentiate a Paging Indication DCI (PI-DCI) from a
Paging DCI (P-DCI). By transmitting the PI-DCI earlier and scrambling it with the PI-RNTI,
the UE is explicitly informed whether it is required to monitor the subsequent paging DCI. This
mechanism eliminates ambiguity at the UE, avoids unnecessary monitoring of paging
occasions, and thereby improves UE power efficiency. Xu neither discloses nor suggests the
introduction of such a dedicated PI-RNTI, nor does Xu recognize the technical problem
addressed by this solution.
Moreover, the introduction of a dedicated Paging Indication RNTI (PI-RNTI) provides
a structural mechanism that unambiguously distinguishes a Paging Indication DCI from a
Paging DCI at the UE. This explicit differentiation allows the paging indication DCI to be
transmitted earlier in time, while ensuring that the UE can reliably determine whether
monitoring of a subsequent paging occasion is required. As a result, unnecessary decoding of
paging DCIs is avoided, false paging is reduced, and UE power consumption is correspondingly
improved. These effects arise from the claimed signaling structure itself, rather than from any
implementation-specific optimization.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a dedicated Paging Indication RNTI (PI-RNTI) provides a structural mechanism that unambiguously distinguishes a Paging Indication DCI from a Paging DCI at the UE. This explicit differentiation allows the paging indication DCI to be transmitted earlier in time, while ensuring that the UE can reliably determine whether monitoring of a subsequent paging occasion is required) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claims 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 20-21 were amended to include the limitations of “or more than one groups of UEs” in lines 6, after the limitations of -more than one groups of UEs-, these newly added limitations are word by word duplication of the previous limitation and appears to be redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
5. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by XU et al. (US 2022/0039062).
Regarding claim 20, Xu discloses a method of paging indication to UEs in radio resource control (RRC) idle/inactive state, the method performed at a base station and comprising the steps of:
transmitting a paging indication downlink control information (DCI) message to the UEs scrambled with a paging indication RNTI (p. [0058], lines 9-end; the DCI may be transmitted in a pre-defined paging occasion…the DCI may include a CRC scrambled by P-RNTI), wherein the paging indication DCI message includes a paging indication field (p. [0059]; the DCI may include a group paging indication), wherein each bit in the paging indication field indicates at least one group of UEs or more than one groups of UEs or more that one groups of UEs (p. [0060], [0064]-[0065]; the DCI may include a short message indicator, the one or more bits in the short message field may be used to provide paging indications for one or more UE groups, for example, if two bits are used for respective paging indications for a first UE group and a second UE group, 01 may indicate that the first UE group is paged); when a bit in the paging indication field is 1, it indicates the UE to decode a subsequent paging DCI message of a paging occasion (p. [0065]; a value of 1 for the bit may indicate that the respective UE group is paged, the UE may determine to decode the paging message if the paging indication, indicates that the UE group associated with the UE is paged – p. [0076]); and when the bit in the paging indication field is 0, the UE is not required to decode the subsequence paging message of the paging occasion (p. [0065]; a value of 0 for the bit may indicate that the respective UE group is not paged, i.e., not required to decode subsequence paging message -p. [0076]).
Regarding claim 21, Xu discloses a method of paging indication to UEs in radio resource control (RRC) idle/inactive state, the method performed at a UE and comprising the steps of:
receiving a downlink control information (DCI) message scrambled with a paging indication RNTI (p. [0058]; the UE receives a DCI transmitted by the base station… the DCI may include a CRC scrambled by P-RNTI), wherein the paging indication DCI message includes a paging indication field (p. [0059]; the DCI may include a group paging indication), wherein each bit in the paging indication field indicates at least one group of UEs or more than one groups of UEs or more that one groups of UEs (p. [0060], [0064]-[0065]; the DCI may include a short message indicator, the one or more bits in the short message field may be used to provide paging indications for one or more UE groups, for example, if two bits are used for respective paging indications for a first UE group and a second UE group, 01 may indicate that the first UE group is paged); when a bit in the paging indication field is 1, it indicates the UE to decode a subsequent paging DCI message of a paging occasion (p. [0065]; a value of 1 for the bit may indicate that the respective UE group is paged, the UE may determine to decode the paging message if the paging indication, indicates that the UE group associated with the UE is paged – p. [0076]); and when the bit in the paging indication field is 0, the UE is not required to decode the subsequence paging message of the paging occasion (p. [0065]; a value of 0 for the bit may indicate that the respective UE group is not paged, i.e., not required to decode subsequence paging message -p. [0076]).
Conclusion
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 MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights