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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 202010506251.2, filed on 05 June 2020.
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0153 states "roadside unit 200 disposed on two sides of the road" when describing Figure 1. Figure 1 only shows Reference 200 on one side of the road. Paragraph 0180 states "Number of OCts." It is unclear what is meant. Starting from Paragraph 0207, "the sub-task/first message" and "a sub-task/first message" are used interchangeably, in conflict with the language in Figure 10. It is recommended the rest of the specification and drawings be checked to ensure appropriate use of "a/an" vs "the.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: "computing task" in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: "a prompt message that is for establishing a radio resource control link and that is sent by the first entity" in claims 3 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 7-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (hereinafter "Park '787"), US 20210105787 A1, Provisional Application No. 62/910,361 filed 03 October 2019.
Regarding Claim 1, Park ‘787 discloses a wireless communication method, wherein the method is applied to a terminal device, and the method comprises (see Paragraph 0002, communication method applied to a terminal/wireless device):
receiving configuration information that is of a sub-task (see Paragraph 0097, configuration information for differing communication tasks is received)
and that is sent by a first entity, wherein the first entity is an entity in a radio access network (see Paragraph 0097, information is sent by base station/first entity in RAN);
executing the sub-task based on the configuration information of the sub-task to generate a task execution result (see Paragraph 0097, received signal levels are measured and a resulting report is generated);
and sending the task execution result to the first entity (see Paragraph 0154, reported measurement results are sent to base station/first entity).
Regarding Claim 2, Park ‘787 discloses wherein the configuration information of the sub-task is sent by the first entity (see Paragraph 0161, first entity sends configuration information message)
based on a signaling link transmission policy and/or a data channel transmission policy that are/is carried in a first message (see Paragraphs 0161, 0166, and 0242, the first message/preamble contains parameters the transmission policy is based on).
Regarding Claim 3, Park ‘787 discloses wherein if based on the first message carrying the signaling link transmission policy, the method further comprises (see Paragraph 0165, the first message may contain further information):
receiving a prompt message that is for establishing a radio resource control link (see Figure 6 Reference 602 and Paragraph 0096, RRC connection/prompt message)
and that is sent by the first entity (see Paragraph 0097, the RRC connection message may be sent by the first entity);
generating a radio resource control establishment request message based on the prompt message (see Paragraph 0097, RRC context/request message is based on RRC connection/prompt message);
and establishing a signaling link with the first entity based on the radio resource control establishment request message (see Paragraph 0097, RRC connection occurs between first entity and terminal based on RRC context/prompt).
Regarding Claim 4, Park ‘787 discloses wherein the prompt message comprises a paging message that carries a type of the sub-task (see Paragraphs 0067, 0097-98, 0100, and RAN 154 in Figure 1B, RRC prompted/connected wireless device paging message carries sub-task details).
Regarding Claim 7, Park ‘787 discloses wherein the signaling link comprises a data radio bearer link and/or a signaling radio bearer link (see Paragraph 0097, RRC context/signaling link may comprise radio link or parameters with which the base station configures the UE/wireless device with that includes or more data radio bearer, logical channel, signaling radio bearer).
Regarding Claim 8, Park ‘787 discloses wherein if based on the first message carrying the data channel transmission policy (see Paragraph 0242, communication between first entity and terminal device includes decision policy),
the data channel transmission policy indicates that a data channel that is between the terminal device and a second entity (see Paragraph 0242, 0218, 0215, and Figure 18A, decision policy and data channel occur between base station and wireless devices)
and that is established by the first entity is used to transmit the configuration information of the sub-task (see Paragraph 0215, wireless device transmits configuration information regarding sub-task/wireless communications)
and the task execution result (see Paragraph 0218 and Figure 18 Reference 1830, wireless communications signal includes information),
and the second entity is an entity in the radio access network (see Paragraph 0054 and Figure 18A, wireless communication network may be an RAN and consist of multiple wireless devices/entities).
Regarding Claim 9, Park ‘787 discloses wherein the data channel comprises a second data channel between the terminal device and a third entity (see Paragraphs 0218 and 0222, data is communicated between wireless devices/terminal device and a third entity)
and a first data channel between the third entity and the second entity (see Figure 18A, Paragraphs 0215 and 0218, data communication between wireless entities),
and the third entity is an entity in the radio access network (see Paragraphs 0054 and 0215, wireless communication network may be an RAN to which the wireless devices/terminals are connected to, fig. 1B shows the wireless devices 106, 156, 156B in the RAN 104).
Regarding Claim 10, Park ‘787 discloses wherein the task execution result and an execution result of another sub-task are transmitted by using the same first data channel between the third entity and the second entity (see Paragraphs 0218 and Figure 18A, data information is sent across same data channels, section 0097, 01471-0142-the wireless device performs and reports measurements to the base station based on received configuration).
Regarding Claim 11, Park ‘787 discloses wherein the second data channel is a data radio bearer link (see Paragraph 0297 and Figure 31 Reference 3124, data is sent across radio bearers).
Regarding Claim 12, Park ‘787 discloses wherein the terminal device is selected by the second entity based on attribute information of each terminal device (see Paragraph 0140, wireless device/second entity determines channel and channel state information),
and the attribute information comprises running state information and/or location information (see Paragraph 0141, the CSI resource configuration may contain location information).
Regarding Claim 13, Park ‘787 discloses wherein the first message is generated by the second entity (see Figure 25 Reference 2530, node/second entity generates first message containing configuration information)
based on a second message sent by the terminal device (see Figure 25 Reference 2510, wireless device/terminal device sends configuration request based on configuration information, section 0246-0247),
and the second message carries a target task (see Paragraph 0254, Reference 2510 carries target task request).
Regarding Claim 14, Park ‘787 discloses wherein that the first message carries the signaling link transmission policy and/or the data channel transmission policy (see Figure 25 Reference 2530, first message carries “policy/condition” or decision policy to the wireless device, the wireless uses send one or more transport blocks based on the decision policy, section 0242, 0246)
is determined based on attribute information of the target task (see Paragraph 0246, decision policy determined based on configuration parameters/attribute information of task).
Regarding Claim 15, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above (see Paragraph 0200, processing system with memory capable of executing instructions).
Regarding Claim 16, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 2 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding Claim 17, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 3 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding Claim 18, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 4 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding Claim 20, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above (see Paragraphs 0200 and 0340, processing system capable of executing instructions on “non-transitory tangible computer readable media”).
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 5-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park '787 in view of Zuniga et al. (hereinafter "Zuniga '361"), CN 103238361 A, translation provided.
Regarding Claim 5, Park ‘787 fails to explicitly teach the paging message comprises a first cause value, and the first cause value indicates the type of the sub-task.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zuniga ‘361 teaches wherein the paging message comprises a first cause value (see Paragraph 0225, cause value with ENB FAILURE message/paging message),
and the first cause value indicates the type of the sub-task (see Paragraph 0225, cause value is related to configuration data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Park ‘787 by including the paging message comprises a first cause value, and the first cause value indicates the type of the sub-task. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve “dynamic frequency spectrum management in the network management channel selecting method,” as suggested by Zuniga ‘361 in the abstract.
Regarding Claim 6, Park ‘787 fails to explicitly teach wherein the radio resource control establishment request message carries a second cause value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zuniga ‘361 teaches wherein the radio resource control establishment request message (see Paragraph 0079, MME/request message is associated with radio technologies/RRC)
carries a second cause value (see Paragraph 0234, cause value with MME FAILURE message/request message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Park ‘787 by including wherein the radio resource control establishment request message carries a second cause value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve “dynamic frequency spectrum management in the network management channel selecting method,” as suggested by Zuniga ‘361 in the abstract.
Regarding Claim 19, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 5 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 20220217553 A1, Foreign Priority: April 02, 2019) discloses “a communication method, for handling a network error, performed by a terminal” related to public land mobile networks (PLMN).
Santhanam et al. (US 10951347 B2, Provisional Application No. 62/531,691 filed July 12, 2017) discloses “techniques for user equipment (UE) capability discovery in distributed wireless networks.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE M LEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Kwang B. Yao can be reached on 571-272-3182. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights