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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2025 was filed and submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b)(3) and has been considered by the Examiner, except that any foreign documents were only considered with respect to the statement of relevance represented by any English translations of the Abstracts of the subject foreign documents.
Specification
The amended title of the invention is still not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the present claims are directed.
Amendment & Election/Restriction
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application, filed on February 3, 2023, that included claims 1 to 13. The Amendment only amends claim 11. It is noted that the Arguments refer to claims 5 and 11 being amended, but only claim 11 is amended in the “Amendments to the Claims”. In particular, the claim status identifier for claim 5 indicates “Currently Amended”, but there are no amendments to claim 5 in the “Listing of Claims”.
The correct status identifier for claim 5 should have been “Original”, since claim 5 in the “Listing of Claims” does not reflect any amendments. Accordingly, independent claim 5 and its
dependent claims 6 and 7 have been examined below as originally filed.
During a telephone conversation between Aaron C. Deditch and Vinay Sathe (San Diego Office of Perkins Coie; Direct Phone Line: (858) 720-5736) on June 5, 2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, which included claims 5-7 and claims 11-13. Affirmation of this election is made by the applicant in the present Amendment replying to the prior Office action. Claims 1-4 and 8-10 were withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 5-7 and 11-13 were previously examined and are examined herein.
In accordance with the prior restriction, claims 5 to 7 and 11 to 13 are confirmed as elected without traverse—as provisionally elected in the telephone conference of June 5, 2025. Also, non-elected claims 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 have now been canceled. Accordingly, only claims 5 to 7 and 11 to 13 are now pending and being considered in the present application.
Applicant is again reminded in view of the cancellation of claims to the non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,856,337 to Xu (“the Xu reference”), for the following reasons.
It is first noted that the Arguments refer to claim 5 as being amended, but the “Amendments to the Claims” include a claim status identifier of “Currently Amended”, but no claim amendments to claim 5 are provided in the “Listing of Claims”. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected as anticipated for the same reasons presented in the Non-Final Office Action (dated June 9, 2025), as follows:
Independent claim 5, like claim 1, is to a “method for wireless communication”.
In this regard, the Abstract of the Xu reference discloses as follows:
[A] method and an apparatus for random access in a wireless communication system, as well as a user terminal. The method includes: receiving indication information transmitted from a radio base station, the indication information instructing a user terminal to initiate a random access; determining a target Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) resource from available resources based on a current coverage level and resource information carried in the indication information, the target PRACH resource being used for transmitting a PRACH signal for initiating the random access; and re-determining, in response to a failure to initiate the random access over the target PRACH resource, the target PRACH resource from the available resources based on an updated coverage level and the resource information, and transmitting the PRACH signal over the re-determined target PRACH resource. . . .
Thus, the Xu reference discloses a “method of wireless communication”.
Claim 5 recites the further limitations of “receiving, by a wireless node from a network node,” a “message instructing the wireless node” to [A] “enable or disable monitoring paging” or [B] “initiating random access on resources” [C] “configured for certain enhanced coverage levels” or [D] “configured for certain number of physical random access channel (PRACH) repetitions” or [E] “configured for certain services”.
That is, a wireless node—which is a UE or terminal—receives a “message instructing the wireless node” to perform [A] or [B] from a network node—which is a base station. Still further, the “resources” of [B] are “configured for”: [C] “certain enhanced coverage levels”, or [D] “certain number of physical random access channel (PRACH) repetitions”, or [E] “certain services”.
In this regard, claim 1 of the Xu reference discloses a “method for wireless communication”, comprising “receiving, at a mobile device”—which is a wireless node, a “message from a base station”—which is a network node, for “initiating a random access procedure” (element [B]), and “selecting a random access channel resource”.
Still further, the Xu reference discloses (at col. 1, lines 55-56) the limitation of “configured for certain enhanced coverage levels” (element [C]), since it discloses the following:
PRACH resources are configured depending on coverage levels. Each coverage level corresponds to a set of PRACH time-frequency resources, a number of PRACH repetitions and a number of random accesses. In the eMTC system, a set of preamble codewords is also configured for each coverage level.
Still further, the Abstract of the Xu reference discloses as follows:
[A] method and an apparatus for random access in a wireless communication system, as well as a user terminal. The method includes: receiving indication information [(a message)] transmitted from a radio base station [(a network node)], the indication information instructing a user terminal [(a wireless node)] to initiate a random access; determining a target Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) resource from available resources based on a current coverage level and resource information carried in the indication information, the target PRACH resource being used for transmitting a PRACH signal for initiating the random access; and re-determining, in response to a failure to initiate the random access over the target PRACH resource, the target PRACH resource from the available resources based on an updated coverage level and the resource information, and transmitting the PRACH signal over the re-determined target PRACH resource. . . .
Since these limitations are in the form of the group of “A or B” and the group of “C or D or E”, each group of limitations is satisfied by establishing any one of the claim elements of its group.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the Xu reference discloses a “method for wireless communication”, comprising “receiving, at a mobile device”—which is a wireless node, a “message from a base station”—which is a network node, for “initiating a random access procedure” (element [B]), and “selecting a random access channel resource”. Still further, the Xu reference discloses (at col. 1, lines 55-56) “configured for certain enhanced coverage levels” (element [C]),
Still further, claim 5 recites the further limitations of [F] “performing an enabling or disabling of monitoring paging” or [G] “initiating random access on the resources configured for” [H] “corresponding enhanced coverage levels” or [I] “corresponding number of PRACH repetitions” or [J] “configured for corresponding services”.
Since these limitations are similarly in the form of the group of “F or G” and the group of
“H or I or J”, each group of limitations is satisfied by establishing any one of the claim elements
of its group.
The Xu reference discloses element [G] (“initiating random access on the resources configured for”) for the same reasons that it discloses element [B] (“initiating random access on resources”), as explained above. Still further, the XU reference discloses element [H] (“corresponding enhanced coverage levels”) for the same reasons that it discloses element [C] (“certain enhanced coverage levels” ).
Claim 5 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by the Xu reference.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5, and it recites the further limitation in which the “message” is “included in a system information block” or is “transmitted using dedicated signaling resources”.
As explained above, the Xu reference discloses (at col. 1, lines 55-56) that messages are transmitted using PRACH resources—which represent “dedicated signaling resources”, since it discloses the following:
PRACH resources are configured depending on coverage levels. Each coverage level corresponds to a set of PRACH time-frequency resources, a number of PRACH repetitions and a number of random accesses. In the eMTC system, a set of preamble codewords is also configured for each coverage level.
Still further, the Abstract of the Xu reference discloses as follows:
[A] method and an apparatus for random access in a wireless communication system, as well as a user terminal. The method includes: receiving indication information [(a message)] transmitted from a radio base station [(a network node)], the indication information instructing a user terminal [(a wireless node)] to initiate a random access; determining a target Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) resource from available resources based on a current coverage level and resource information carried in the indication information, the target PRACH resource being used for transmitting a PRACH signal for [a message for] initiating the random access; and re-determining, in response to a failure to initiate the random access over the target PRACH resource, the target PRACH resource from the available resources based on an updated coverage level and the resource information, and transmitting the PRACH signal over the re-determined target PRACH resource. . . .
Thus, the Xu reference discloses the further limitation in which the “message” is “transmitted using dedicated signaling resources”.
Claim 6 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by the Xu, for the same reasons as claim 5 and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 7 depends from claim 5, and it recites the further limitation in which the “message includes a configuration for triggering an enable or disable operation”, in which the “configuration includes at least one of” a “threshold” or a “comparison factor”. Since the claim 5 analysis was not based on the “enable or disable operation”, the further claim 7 limitation need not be considered.
Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by the Xu reference, for the same reasons as claim 5 and for the foregoing reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 11 to 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,856,337 to Xu (“the Xu reference”), in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,863,414 to Lindell et al. (“the Lindell reference”), in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,721,675 to Jain (“the Jain reference”), and in view of 5G NR: The Next Generation Wireless Access Technology, Radio Interface Architecture, Chapter 6 (2018) (“the Radio Interface reference”), for the following reasons.
Independent claim 11, as amended, is to a “wireless communication apparatus”.
In this regard, the Abstract of the Xu reference discloses as follows:
[A] method and an apparatus for random access in a wireless communication system, as well as a user terminal. The method includes: receiving indication information transmitted from a radio base station, the indication information instructing a user terminal to initiate a random access; determining a target Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) resource from available resources based on a current coverage level and resource information carried in the indication information, the target PRACH resource being used for transmitting a PRACH signal for initiating the random access; and re-determining, in response to a failure to initiate the random access over the target PRACH resource, the target PRACH resource from the available resources based on an updated coverage level and the resource information, and transmitting the PRACH signal over the re-determined target PRACH resource. . . .
Thus, the Xu reference discloses a “wireless communication apparatus”.
Claim 11, as amended, also recites a “processor electronics configured to cause the wireless communication apparatus to implement a method”.
In this regard, the Xu reference discloses (at col. 6, line 57 to col. 7, line 21) a “user terminal” (that is, a UE) having one or more processors 101, a memory 103, and a transmission device 105, and in which the processor performs the processing of the method.
As to the method of claim 11, as amended, it generally recites limitations like those of claim 5, except that it recites the limitations of “receiving, by a wireless node from a network node,” a “message instructing the wireless node” to “enable or disable monitoring paging” for “certain enhanced coverage levels”; and “performing an enabling or disabling of monitoring paging for corresponding enhanced coverage levels”.
In this regard, claim 1 of the Xu reference discloses a “method for wireless communication”, comprising “receiving, at a mobile device”—which is a wireless node, a “message from a base station”—which is a network node.
Still further, the Xu reference discloses (at col. 1, lines 55-56; and col. 2, lines 57-58) the limitation of “configured for certain enhanced coverage levels”, since it discloses the following:
PRACH resources are configured depending on coverage levels. Each coverage level corresponds to a set of PRACH time-frequency resources, a number of PRACH repetitions and a number of random accesses. In the eMTC system, a set of preamble codewords is also configured for each coverage level.
. . . .
[The] updated coverage level is one level higher than the coverage level before updating [(that is, the coverage levels can be enhanced (higher or increased) coverage levels)].
Still further, the Abstract of the Xu reference discloses as follows:
[A] method and an apparatus for random access in a wireless communication system, as well as a user terminal. The method includes: receiving indication information [(a message)] transmitted from a radio base station [(a network node)], the indication information instructing a user terminal [(a wireless node)] to initiate a random access; determining a target Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) resource from available resources based on a current coverage level and resource information carried in the indication information, the target PRACH resource being used for transmitting a PRACH signal for initiating the random access; and re-determining, in response to a failure to initiate the random access over the target PRACH resource, the target PRACH resource from the available resources based on an updated [(that is, enhanced)] coverage level and the resource information, and transmitting the PRACH signal over the re-determined target PRACH resource. . . .
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the Xu reference discloses a “method for wireless communication”, comprising “receiving, at a mobile device”—which is a wireless node, a “message from a base station”—which is a network node. Still further, the Xu reference discloses (at the abstract) updated (that is, enhanced (higher or increased) coverage levels, which discloses the limitation of “configured for certain enhanced coverage levels”.
Thus, the XU reference discloses “enhanced coverage levels” of claim 11, as amended, for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 11, as amended, recites the limitations of “receiving, by a wireless node from a network node,” a “message instructing the wireless node” to “enable or disable monitoring paging” for “certain enhanced coverage levels”; and “performing an enabling or disabling of monitoring paging for corresponding enhanced coverage levels”. That is, enhanced coverage levels are effectively enabled or disabled by enabling or disabling monitoring paging.
In this regard, the Abstract of the Lindell reference discloses the following:
[T]here is disclosed herein a method for authorizing [(that is, enabling)] utilization of enhanced coverage. The method comprises receiving a first message indicating that a first wireless device supports one or more enhanced coverage features. The method additionally includes obtaining an identification of the first wireless device. The method further includes obtaining, based on the identification of the first wireless device, an indication of whether the first wireless device is authorized [(that is, enabled)] to access the one or more enhanced coverage features or the first wireless device is not authorized [(that is, disabled)] to access the one or more enhanced coverage features.
Still further, the Lindell reference discloses (at col. 1, lines 15-32), as follows:
Enhanced Coverage (EC): As used herein, EC denotes any additional features or capabilities that may be provided by a cell in wireless communication. For example, EC may include the EC concept covered in certain communication standards such as the one specified in TS36.300 (e.g., subclause 23.7b) (available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/archive/36_series/36.300/36300-d30.zip), or TS36.331 (available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/archive/36_series/
36.331/36331-d10.zip). These may be used to secure communication between a wireless device and a network node. One such concept is to increase the coverage range . . . when a UE uses any techniques or features (e.g., additional power [(which may result, for example, from monitoring paging)] . . . ) that may be considered to be enhanced. These techniques often consume a substantial amount of additional radio resources. Network operators may wish to limit access to EC to those UEs that are authorized for EC operation.
Also in this regard, the Jain reference discloses (at col. 1, lines 16-19) “enabling and disabling enhanced coverage” in “wireless communication systems”, and the Abstract further discloses the following:
Apparatuses of wireless communication systems are disclosed. A User Equipment (UE) stores an enhanced coverage restricted parameter from a Mobility Management Entity (MME), and operates in the enhanced coverage mode if the enhanced coverage restricted parameter indicates that the UE is not restricted [(enabled)]. . . . An eNode B decodes a message from the UE, the message indicating that the UE supports restriction [(disabled)] . . . of enhanced coverage. The eNB decodes an S1 Application Protocol (S1-AP) initial context set-up request message configured to indicate an enhanced coverage restricted parameter, the message received from the MME. The eNB operates in the enhanced coverage mode for the UE unless the enhanced coverage restricted
parameter indicates that the enhanced coverage is restricted [(disabled)].
Still further, the Jain reference discloses (at col. 21, lines 25-50), the following:
FIG. 4 is a simplified signal flow diagram illustrating a procedure 400 for paging with Enhanced Coverage (e.g., setting enhanced coverage in a paging message). As shown in FIG. 4, the MME/SGSN 221, on receiving 410 a Downlink Data Notification, checks 420 if Enhanced Coverage Restricted/Allowed parameter is set in the MME/SGSN 221 MM or EPS bearer context.
If the MME/SGSN 221 has information for Enhanced Coverage stored, and Enhanced Coverage Restricted/Allowed parameter is set, then the MME/SGSN 221 shall include 430 information for Enhanced Coverage in the paging message for all RAN Nodes/APs 211 selected by the MME/SGSN 221 for paging. This is shown in element 430 of FIG. 4. If the information for Enhanced Coverage for a particular UE/MS 201 is included 430 in the paging message, the RAN Node/AP 211 may page 440 the UE/MS 201 using enhanced coverage.
If the MME/SGSN 221 has information for Enhanced Coverage stored, and Enhanced Coverage Restricted/Allowed parameter is not set (i.e., value indicates enhanced coverage is not authorized or is disabled) then the MME/SGSN 221 shall not include 430 information for Enhanced Coverage in the paging message for all RAN Nodes/APs 211 selected by the MME/SGSN 221 for paging. [In] this case the RAN Node/AP 211 does not enable enhanced coverage options for this UE/MS 201.
Finally, the Radio Interface reference (at section 6.5.2.2 “Paging Message Transmission”) discloses that monitoring paging consumes device energy, since it states as follows:
[P]aging messages are provided by means of ordinary scheduled PDSCH transmissions. [T]o allow for low device energy consumption, a device is only supposed to wake up at specific time instances, for example, once every 100 ms or even less often, to monitor for paging messages. Paging messages are indicated by a specific PI-RNTI carried within the DCI. Once detecting such a DCI, the device demodulates and decodes the corresponding PDSCH to extract the paging message(s). Note that there can be multiple paging messages, corresponding to different devices, within the same paging transmission. The PI-RNTI is thus a shared identity.
The Xu reference (discloses enhanced coverage), the Lindell reference (discloses authorized/not authorized (that is, enabled/disabled) enhanced coverage), the Jain reference (discloses authorized/not authorized (that is, enabled/disabled) enhanced coverage) , and the Radio Interface reference (discloses reducing energy use by disabling monitoring paging; and or consequently increasing energy use by enabling monitoring paging) are plainly analogous to the claimed subject matter because they are in the same field of endeavor, namely wireless communication systems having in which enhanced coverage can be authorized (enabled) or not authorized (disabled).
Still further and in particular, the Lindell reference discloses (at col. 1, lines 15-32) increasing the coverage range (level) when a UE uses any techniques or features, such as, for example, power (which may result, for example, from disabling monitoring paging), as follows:
Enhanced Coverage (EC): As used herein, EC denotes any additional features or capabilities that may be provided by a cell in wireless communication. For example, EC may include the EC concept covered in certain communication standards such as the one specified in TS36.300 (e.g., subclause 23.7b) (available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/archive/36_series/36.300/36300-d30.zip), or TS36.331 (available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/archive/36_series/
36.331/36331-d10.zip). These may be used to secure communication between a wireless device and a network node. One such concept is to increase the coverage range of a cell when a UE uses any techniques or features (e.g., . . . power [(which may result, for example, from monitoring paging)], additional channel coding or repetitions of transmissions) that may be considered to be enhanced. These techniques often consume a substantial amount of additional radio resources. Network operators may wish to limit access to EC to those UEs that are authorized for EC operation.
In this regard and in particular, the Radio Interface also provides the known technique and/or motivation for enabling or disabling monitoring paging (reducing or increasing energy use) for authorizing (enabling) or not authorizing) (disabling) “certain enhanced coverage levels”.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Xu reference, the Lindell reference, and the Jain reference by applying the known technique and/or motivation of enabling or disabling monitoring paging (reducing or increasing energy use) for authorizing (enabling) or not authorizing) (disabling) the “certain enhanced coverage levels”.
Claim 11 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Xu reference, in view of the Lindell reference, the Jain reference, and the Radio Interface reference.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11, and it recites the further limitation in which the “message” is “included in a system information block” or is “transmitted using dedicated signaling resources”.
As explained above, the Xu reference discloses (at col. 1, lines 55-56) that messages are transmitted using PRACH resources—which represent “dedicated signaling resources”, since it discloses the following:
PRACH resources are configured depending on coverage levels. Each coverage level corresponds to a set of PRACH time-frequency resources, a number of PRACH repetitions and a number of random accesses. In the eMTC system, a set of preamble codewords is also configured for each coverage level.
Still further, the Abstract of the Xu reference discloses as follows:
[A] method and an apparatus for random access in a wireless communication system, as well as a user terminal. The method includes: receiving indication information [(a message)] transmitted from a radio base station [(a network node)], the indication information instructing a user terminal [(a wireless node)] to initiate a random access; determining a target Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) resource from available resources based on a current coverage level and resource information carried in the indication information, the target PRACH resource being used for transmitting a PRACH signal for [a message for] initiating the random access; and re-determining, in response to a failure to initiate the random access over the target PRACH resource, the target PRACH resource from the available resources based on an updated [(that is, enhanced)] coverage level and the resource information, and transmitting the PRACH signal over the re-determined target PRACH resource. . . .
Thus, the Xu reference discloses the further limitation in which the “message” is “transmitted using dedicated signaling resources”.
Claim 12 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Xu reference, in view of the Lindell reference, the Jain reference, and the Radio Interface reference, for the same reasons as claim 11 and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 13 depends from claim 11, and it recites the further limitation in which the “message includes a configuration for triggering an enable or disable operation”, in which the “configuration includes at least one of” a “threshold” or a “comparison factor”.
As regards the configuration including a threshold or comparison factor, nothing in the instant specification (including paragraphs [182] and [186]) explains these aspects of any configuration.
In this regard, the Abstract of the Lindell reference discloses the following:
[T]here is disclosed herein a method for authorizing [(that is, enabling)] utilization of enhanced coverage. The method comprises receiving a first message indicating that a first wireless device supports one or more enhanced coverage features. The method additionally includes obtaining an identification of the first wireless device. The method further includes obtaining, based on the identification of the first wireless device, an indication of whether the first wireless device is authorized [(that is, enabled)] to access the one or more enhanced coverage features or the first wireless device is not authorized [(that is, disabled)] to access the one or more enhanced coverage features.
Thus, the Xu reference, in view of the Lindell reference, the Jain reference, and the Radio Interface reference, disclose or at least suggest the further limitation in which the “message includes a configuration for triggering an enable or disable operation”.
As to the “configuration include[ing] at least one of” a “threshold” or a “comparison factor”, Official Notice is taken that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any enabling or disabling would be based on a triggering parameter, such as, for example, a threshold or a comparison parameter (factor).
Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Xu reference, in view of the Lindell reference, the Jain reference, and the Radio Interface reference, for the same reasons as claim 11 and for the foregoing reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 4, 2025 have been considered, but they are not persuasive.
The amended title of the invention is still not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the present claims are directed.
As regards claims 5 to 7, these claims are rejected as anticipated by the Xu reference for the reasons explained herein, which have not been addressed and which have not been refuted.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 to 13 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Also, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims somehow define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguished the claims from the references. Still further, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the rejections made. Further, they do
not specifically explain how the amendments avoid such references or rejections.
Finally, the Amendment and Remarks do not refute or specifically address any of the specific arguments, explanations, and facts presented in the Office Action.
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 AARON C. DEDITCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday at 8:00 am to 6:30 pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/Aaron C. Deditch/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
9/29/25
Prosecution Insights