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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-33 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the newly added claims are directed to a base station and wireless device, while previous claims were drawn to a central unit and each device is different. For example, the CU does not have direct communication to an AMF, nor receive radio resource control (RRC) release message. Thereby, each device is patentably distinct
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-33 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 20220303946 in view of Liu 20220272767.
As to claim 1, Kim discloses discloses a method comprising:
receiving [1503,1603], by a first central unit (CU) of a base station [eNB-CU] from an entity [MME], a first radio access network (RAN) paging message [S1-AP] (see par. 0014), for a wireless device in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state (see par. 0005, 0153), comprising: a first parameter indicating a small data transmission (SDT) procedure for a wireless device [MT-EDT indicator]; a second parameter indicating a data size for the SDT procedure [DL data size] (see par. 0252, 0278); and a third parameter indicating a RAN user equipment (UE) paging identity [EDT-RNTI, RNTI, Resume ID] (see par. 0256);
transmitting [1504,1604], by the first CU to a first distributed unit (DU) of the base station, a second paging message comprising a field indicating the SDT procedure for the wireless device (see par. 0253, 0279); and the third parameter indicating the RAN UE paging identity state (see par. 0005, 0153, 0311); and receiving, by the first CU and via the first DU from the wireless device in the RRC inactive state, an RRC Resume request message comprising the RAN UE paging identity [resume ID] (see par. 0153, 0199, 0306, 0336).
If there is an uncertainty if the Resume ID identifies the UE, in an analogous art, Liu discloses an RRC Resume request message comprising the RAN UE paging identity (see par. 0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the parameters in a single message and to repeat the steps for other devices such as a second base station for the simple purpose of repeating the steps during a handover and allowing small data transmission for a quick transmission of data.
As to claim 2, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the wireless device, a radio resource control (RRC) request message for the SDT procedure (see par. 0170, 0264).
As to claim 3, Kim discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the RRC request message is received via the first DU (see par. 0155-0156).
As to claim 4, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the RRC request message comprises a cause parameter indicating that the RRC request message is for the SDT procedure (see par. 0155-0156, 0199).
As to claim 5, Kim discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising determining, by the first CU and based on the cause parameter, whether to accept or reject the RRC request (see par. 0155).
As to claim 6, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the RRC request message comprises at least one of:
an RRC early data transmission (EDT) request; and an RRC resume request message indicating a mobile-terminated early data transmission (MT-EDT) (see par. 0197); and an RRC setup request message indicating the MT-EDT (see par. 0170-0171).
As to claim 7, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first paging message comprises a radio access network (RAN) paging message (see par. 0120).
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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-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, Alison Slater can be reached at (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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647