DETAILED ACTION
Response filed on has been entered and made of record.
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, 5, 7. And 9 are amended
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-11 are pending for examination.
Response to arguments
Re: Claim objection
Based on claim amendment, claim objection is withdrawn.
Re: 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection
Based on claim amendments and applicant’s persuasive arguments, 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Re: 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “However, the cited portions at most disclose that the MME shall start timer T3450 "if the MME assigns a new GUTI for the UE, a GUT/ shall be included in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT message," and that "[u]pon receiving a TRACKING AREA UPDATE COMPLETE message, the MME shall stop timer T3450." However, the cited portions of Chen fail to teach or suggest "the second eDRX parameter is used with the new GUTI by the control device until a timer started by sending the accept message is stopped by receiving the complete message, the timer being started by sending the accept message," as recited in claim 1.” (Pg.7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the office action the combined disclosures by prior arts used imply the use of new GUTI sent by the network and honored by the user equipment.
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 1, 5, and 7 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” and further in view of Chen et al. (WO-2012050841-A1), hereinafter “Chen”.
Claims 1, 5, and 7:
Regarding claim 1, Jia teaches, ‘a terminal’ () comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory storing instructions’ () that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to:
‘send a request message including a first eDRX (Extended Idle Mode DRX) parameter to a control device in a core network’ (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.”);
receive an accept message sent from the control device, the accept message including in a case where a second eDRX parameter different from the first eDRX parameter is provided by the core network the 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).”; the difference of eDRX parameters are disclosed above).
Jia however fails to teach receive an accept message sent from the control device, ‘the accept message including a new GUTI for the terminal’, but 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 the claim element, ‘send 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.”).
Combination of Kim’s disclosure of TAU ACCEPT message including suitable TAI list and corresponding GUTI ([0469]) and Jia’s disclosure of TAU acceptance response including eDRX parameters, imply that the second eDRX parameters and the new GUTI are to be used by the control device, and, combined with disclosure by Jia, “[0017] The 3GPP specification requires the UE to always honor the network provided eDRX parameters, even if they are different that the eDRX parameters requested by the UE.”, thus teaches the claim element, ‘wherein the second eDRX parameter is used with the new GUTI by the control device’. The implication is further disclosed by standard 3GPP TS 24.301, § 5.5.1.3.4.2 “The UE, receiving an ATTACH ACCEPT message, stores the received location area identification, stops timer T3410, resets the location update attempt counter and sets the update status to U1 UPDATED.”
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, accept message including new GUTI, with the disclosure by Jia regarding different eDRX parameters in conformity with the new TAI list, as disclosed by Kim.
Combination of Jia and Kim however fails to teach but in the same field of endeavor Chen teaches, ‘until a timer started by sending the accept message is stopped by receiving the complete message, the timer being started by sending the accept message’ (Chen: Pg.126 “If the tracking area update request has been accepted by the network, the MME shall send a TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT message to the UE. If the MME assigns a new GUTI for the UE, a GUTI shall be included in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT message. In this case, the MME shall start timer T3450 … The MME may include a new TAI list for the UE in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT message.”; Pg.131, “Upon receiving a TRACKING AREA UPDATE COMPLETE message, the MME shall stop timer T3450, and shall consider the GUTI sent in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT message as valid.”. ).
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 Chen regarding T3450 timer and disclosures by combination of Jia and Kim regarding new eDRX parameters and GUTI for confirmation UE shall be using those new values, if any.
Claim 5 is for a method implemented by the terminal of claim 1. The claim is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Claim elements are discussed above in claim 1. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 7 is for a method performed by a control device in the core network. The method is complimentary to method of claim 5. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 5.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Jia, Kim and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0152978 A1), hereinafter “Kim2”.
Regarding claim 9, combination of Jia, Kim and Chen teaches the terminal according to claim 1,
Combination of Jia, Kim and Chen however does not teach the claim, ‘wherein the new GUTI is assigned based on updating the first eDRX parameter to the second eDRX parameter’.
Kim2 in the same field of endeavor teaches the following:
Col.16, lines 17-20, “In the case that it is required to use eDRX, even in the case that eDRX parameter is already negotiated in advance, eDRX parameter(s) information is included in the TAU Request message;
Col.17, lines 55-63, “20. The new MME transmits a TAU Accept message to the UE. At this time, in the case that the MME allocates a new Globally Unique Temporary Identity (GUTI) to the UE, the allocated GUTI may be included in the TAU Accept message.
When the UE includes eDRX parameter(s) information in the TAU Request message, the MME includes the eDRX parameter(s) information in the TAU Accept message in the case that the MME determines to activate the eDRX.”
Fig. 8 shows that attach accept message in step 3 includes GUTI.
Col.18, lines 15-23, “The ISR is activated by a determination of a Core Network (CN) node, and explicitly signaled to a UE as "ISR activated" in a RAU Accept message or a TAU Accept message. The UE may obtain a valid Mobility Management (MM) parameter from the MME and the SGSN. "Temporary Identity used in Next update (TIN)" is a parameter of the MM context of the UE, and identifies a UE identifier that the UE should indicate in the next RAU Request, TAU Request or Attach Request message. … The TIN may correspond to one of three values, "Packet-Temporary Mobile Subscriber Identity (P-TMSI)", "Globally Unique Temporary Identity (GUTI)" or "RAT-related TMSI".”
The disclosures by Kim2 imply the Temporary Identity (TIN), which may be GUTI, is included in TAU Accept message after the network node receives the eDRX parameters in TAU Request message.
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 Kim2 with combination of Jia, Kim and Chen so as to use proper identity by the terminal device for communication with the base station/core network, based on the eDRX parameters.
Claim 10 is for a method implemented by the terminal of claim 9. The claim is a change in category with respect to claim 9. Claim elements are discussed above in claim 9. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 9.
Claim 11 is for a method performed by a control device in the core network. The method is complimentary to method of claim 10. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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