DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant Office Action is in response to communication filed on 8/6/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are the base independent claims.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Regarding claim 1, Applicant files arguments with respect to the amendment.
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner explains that determining the location of the UE itself by using a GNSS is an obvious feature. In addition, Applicant’s disclosure (US 20230309127, [0443]) indicates the determination can be done with or without using the GNSS ability. Nonetheless, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Shrestha based on the amended claim limitations. Upon further consideration, Xu and Wu still apply to a portion of the independent claims because the amendment does not change the scope of this portion. The rest of the arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference being used in the current rejection.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, because the patent scopes of the limitations in the independent claims are the same as in claim 1, therefore the claims are rejected based on the same reason given to claim 1 mutatis mutandis.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 2023/0300807) in view of Wu et al (US 2021/0298108), and in view of Shrestha et al (US 2022/0321206).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a wireless device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (par 192; processor and memory), cause the wireless device to:
receive configuration parameters indicating a geographical area for a preconfigured uplink resource (PUR) configuration of a first cell (fig. 13, fig. 14 & par 95; e.g. one PUR indication indicates that one PUR configuration is effective in one area, the other PUR indication indicates that the other PUR configuration is effective in the other area);
transmit, when the first cell is a serving cell, an uplink signal via one or more PURs indicated by the PUR configuration (par 98; e.g. When the UE initiating the uplink transmission in cell #1, the PUR for cell #1 is activated); and maintain, the PUR configuration of the first cell based on a geographical location of the wireless device being within the geographical area (par 98; e.g. if the PUR indication indicates that the PUR configuration is effective in an area including both the cell#1 and cell #2…when the UE moves to the cell #2 due to the movements of the UE and/or the satellite (or the BS), the UE does not need to initiate a random access to get a PUR configuration first; hence maintaining the PUR configuration).
Although Xu discloses the UE moves to the cell#2, Xi does not explicitly disclose:
when a second cell is the serving cell (emphasis added).
However, it is obvious in view of Wu, because Wu discloses:
In par 130; e.g. the UL SPS resources for use in the RRC idle mode are reserved resources for all cells in a tracking area…all cells in the TA where this cell is located will reserve the RRC idle mode UL SPS resources, so even if the UE in the RRC idle mode performs a cell reselection, the UE still assumes that the previously configured RRC idle mode UL SPS resources are valid. It is understood, a second cell is the serving cell after a cell reselection.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Wu with the electronic system of Xu. One is motivated as such to reducing the UE power consumption (Wu, par 36).
The combination does not explicitly disclose:
according to a position of the wireless device provided by a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (emphasis added).
However, Shrestha obviously disclose the feature in par 80, that the UE 115 may determine its own location based on a GNSS reading from the satellite 110.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Shrestha with the electronic system of Xu and Wu. One is motivated as such to determine the location of the UE by itself (Shrestha, par 80).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: camp on the second cell; and release, when the second cell is the serving cell, the PUR configuration of the first cell based on a second geographical location of the wireless device being outside the geographical area (par 194; e.g. If a tracking area change occurs, the UE considers that the UL SPS configuration is invalid and that the UL SPS configuration must be released).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: camp on the second cell; receive second configuration parameters comprising a second PUR configuration of the second cell; and replace the PUR configuration with the second PUR configuration based on the second geographical location of the wireless device being outside the geographical area (par 95; one PUR indication indicates that one PUR configuration is effective in one area, the other PUR indication indicates that the other PUR configuration is effective in the other area).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: camp on the second cell; receive third configuration parameters comprising a third PUR configuration of the second cell; and store the third PUR configuration without replacing the PUR configuration based on the geographical location of the wireless device being within the geographical area (par 95; one PUR indication indicates that one PUR configuration is effective in one area, the other PUR indication indicates that the other PUR configuration is effective in the other area).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: camp on the first cell; and transmit, when the first cell is the serving cell, a second uplink signal via one or more second PURs indicated by the PUR configuration based on not replacing the PUR configuration (par 168; e.g. the PUR indication 1322 indicates that the UE 410 retains the PUR configuration 1311 for a period of time (e.g., including N consecutive PUR occasions) since the UE receives the PUR configuration 1311 in the area 1).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses:
wherein the configuration parameters are received via a radio resource control (RRC) connection release message (par 57; connection release command).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses:
wherein the PUR configuration is at least one of: small data transmission (SDT) configuration; configured grant (CG) configuration; CG-SDT configuration; and random-access (RA) SDT configuration (par 98; e.g. random access).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses:
wherein the wireless device is: in a radio resource control (RRC) connected mode when receiving the configuration parameters (par 41; the PUR is configured in RRC_CONNECTED); and in an RRC idle mode when transmitting the uplink signal (par 28; The PUR allows one uplink transmission in RRC_IDLE).
Regarding claims 9-20, Xu in view of Wu and Shrestha also discloses a method performed by the wireless device of claim 1, and a computer readable medium for performing the method. Thus, the rejection mapping for claims 9-20 are similar to the above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rune et al (US 2023/0397060, see par 34).
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 YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights