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 .
This office action is in response to Remarks filed on Aug. 22, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 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 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.
Claims 1-6, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Futaki et al. (022/0287102).
Regarding claim 1, Futaki discloses a method in a distributed unit (DU) of a base station, the base station including the DU and a central unit (CU), for determining a capability of a user equipment (UE) (see abstract, figs.1-2, element gNB 1, fig.13, element DUs 12, CU 11, paragraphs [0024-0025], [0036], [0044], [0124-0125] and its description), the method comprising: receiving, by the DU, a payload transmission during a random-access procedure with the UE (see abstract, fig.6, elements gNB 1 UE 2, step 603, paragraphs [0029], [0087-0088] and its description); determining, by the DU, using a logical channel identity included in the payload transmission, whether the UE is a reduced-capability device or a normal-capability device (see abstract, fig.14, element DU 12, step 1401, paragraph [0037], [0128] and its description); and transmitting, from the DU to the CU, an indication of whether the UE is the reduced- capability device or the normal-capability device (see abstract, fig.14, element DU 12, steps 1401-1402, paragraph [0037], [0128-0129] and its description).
Regarding claim 2, Futaki further discloses wherein: the payload transmission includes a protocol data unit (PDU) of a media access control (MAC) layer, the PDU including the logical channel identity (see paragraphs [0067], [0087-0089], [0126], [0194]).
Regarding claim 3, Futaki further configured to: generate a downlink control information for the UE based on whether the UE is a reduced-capability device or a normal-capability device (see paragraphs [0008], [0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Futaki further discloses wherein: to receive the payload transmission, the DU is configured to receive the payload transmission on a PUSCH (see paragraph [0065-0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Futaki discloses a method in a central unit (CU) of a base station, the base station including the CU and a distributed unit (DU), for determining a capability of a user equipment (UE) (see abstract, figs.1-2, element gNB 1, fig.13, element DUs 12, CU 11, paragraphs [0024-0025], [0036], [0044], [0124-0125] and its description), the method comprising: receiving, by the CU via the DU, a payload transmission during a random-access procedure with the UE (see abstract, fig.6, elements gNB 1 UE 2, step 603, paragraphs [0029], [0087-0088], figs.13-14, elements DU 12, CU 11, paragraphs [0036-0037], [0125-0127] and its description); determining, at the CU, using a logical channel identity included in the payload transmission, whether the UE is a reduced capability device or a normal-capability device (see abstract, fig.14, element CU 11, steps 1401-1402, paragraph [0037], [0128-0129] and its description); and transmitting, from the CU to the DU, an indication of whether the UE is the reduced- capability device or the normal-capability device (see abstract, fig.14, element CU 11, steps 1401-1402, paragraph [0037], [0128-0130] and its description).
Regarding claim 6, Futaki further discloses wherein: the payload transmission includes a protocol data unit (PDU) of a media access control (MAC) layer, the PDU including the logical channel identity (see paragraphs [0067], [0087-0089], [0126], [0194]).
Regarding claims 11-14 recite limitations substantially similar to the claims 1-4. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki et al. (022/0287102) in view of Toeda et al. (2020/0228964).
Regarding claim 7, Futaki discloses all the subject matters described above, except for transmitting the indication includes: transmitting, to the DU, a CU-to-DU message including the indication. However, Toeda discloses wireless communication networks comprising wherein transmitting the indication includes: transmitting, to the DU, a CU-to-DU message including the indication and a message for the UE device (see abstract, fig.6, elements 210, 260, 300, steps 1-5, paragraphs [0018], [0073-0081] and its description). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use Toeda’s transmitting the indication in order to indicate of the capability of user for improving the quality of the of communication network.
Claims 8, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki et al. (2022/0287102) in view of Toeda et al. (2020/0228964). And further view of Teyed et al. (2023/0328604).
Regarding claim 8, Futaki further comprising: transmitting, a handover request that includes a second indication of whether the UE is the reduced-capability device or the normal-capability device (see paragraphs [0155]) and all the subject matters described above, except for transmitting, by the CU, to a target base station. However, Teyeb discloses wireless communication networks comprising: transmitting, by the CU, to a target base station, a handover request that includes a second indication of whether the UE is the reduced-capability device or the normal-capability device (see fig.13, elements Source gNB-CU-CP, Target base station, step 1, paragraphs [0090], [0162] and its description). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use Teyeb’s handover technique in order to transfer from one base station to another without losing connectivity to cellular transmission.
Regarding claim 9, Toeda further comprising: transmitting, by the CU, to a target DU of the base station, an intra-base station handover request that includes a second indication of whether the UE is the reduced-capability device or the normal- capability device (see fig.13, elements Source gNB-CU-CP, Target gNB-DU, step 1, paragraphs [0090], [0162-0163] and its description).
Regarding claim 10, Toeda further discloses wherein transmitting the intra-base station handover request includes transmitting a UE Context Setup Request message (see fig.13, elements Source gNB-CU-CP, Target gNB-DU, step 2, paragraphs [01620063] and its description).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CongVan Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-7871. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Th.
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 on (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.
PNG
media_image1.png
125
125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
/CONGVAN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647