DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Claim status
Claims 1-11 are canceled.
Claims 12-14 are newly added.
Claims 12-14 are pending for examination.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yupeng Jia (US 2018/0152978 A1), hereinafter Jia” in view of (US 2016/0373915 A1), hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 12, Jia teaches, a method for terminal device comprising:
sending, to a control device in a network, a Registration Request message including a first eDRX (Extended Idle Mode DRX) parameter (Jia: [0015] “UE shall request the use of eDRX during an attachment procedure or tracking area update (TAU) procedure by including desired eDRX parameters in the attach request or the TAU request.”; attachment request and TAU request are types of registration message);
receiving, from the control device, a Registration Accept message including a new GUTI (Globally Unique Temporary UE Identity) assigned for the terminal and a second eDRX parameter ([0016] “In some scenarios, the eDRX parameters provided by the network to the UE (referred to herein as the network eDRX parameters) in an attachment or TAU acceptance response are different from the eDRX parameters requested by the UE in the attach/TAU request (referred to herein as the UE eDRX parameters).”; “TAU acceptance response” is the Registration Accept message of the claim; second eDRX parameter is implied by the eDRX parameter provided being different from the one requested by the UE);
Jia however fails to teach receiving, from the control device, a Registration Accept message including, a new GUTI (Globally Unique Temporary UE Identity) assigned for the terminal.
Kim in the same field of endeavor teaches the claim element, (Kim: [0469] “the TAU ACCEPT message includes a new TAI list suitable for the current position of the UE. Furthermore, the TAU ACCEPT message may include a corresponding GUTI if the MME allocates a new GUTI to the UE.”).
Kim also teaches, sending a Complete message to the control device (Kim: [0471] The UE which has received the TAU ACCEPT message sends a TAU COMPLETE message to the MME through the eNB for an acknowledgement response at step S2605.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Kim with that of Jia and come up with the claimed invention, wherein the new GUTI is assigned based on updating the first eDRX parameter to the second eDRX parameter, based on and motivated by the following:
Teaching by Jia discloses update of eDRX parameter in TAU Acceptance Response message and teaching by Kim discloses provision of a second GUTI in a TAU Accept Message (which is the same as Jia’s TAU Acceptance Response Message). Both updates are provided based on TAU request message. Kim’s disclosure of TAU Request message includes a GUTI, as disclosed in [0465] “ UE includes a GUTI and the last visited TAI in the TAU REQUEST message and sends the TAU REQUEST message. MME may assign a new GUTI as disclosed above, if it decides that new TAI list related to location update requires a new GUTI for seamless handover and location update without exposing user equipment’s permanent identity (GUTI is abbreviation for Globally Unique Temporary UE Identity).
Claim 13 is for a terminal device implementing method of claim 12. Claim is change in category with respect to claim 12. Presence of memory and process is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 12.
Claim 14 is for method complimentary to method of claim 12. Claim elements are discussed above in claim 12. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-9504012-B1 teaches Extended Discontinuous Reception Mechanism in a wireless network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights