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 .
Priority
1. The present application is a national stage entry of PCT/US2023/011867 filed 01/30/2023.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse electing claims 1 - 7 in the reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “previously generated” and “newly generated” AI/ML-based model and/or policy parameters. It is unclear to the Examiner what the bounds of “previously generated” and “newly generated” encompass, here, particularly given that they are received from the RAN.
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites “the zone identifier obtained from a system information broadcast of the second RAN node”. However, the parent claim, claim 1, recites the zone identifier as being received from the first RAN node. The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200260240 A1) in view of Liu (US 20230292189 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses subject matter relating to V2X and zone id transmission. Specifically, Lee discloses a user equipment (UE) (UE; see Fig. 5) comprising:
a memory having non-transitory instructions stored therein (memory; see Fig. 5); and
a processor coupled to the memory, and being configured to execute the instructions, thereby causing the UE to (processor coupled to memory; see Fig. 5):
while operating in a connected mode, receive each of a zone identifier and a UE identifier from a first radio access network (RAN) node of a RAN, wherein the zone identifier corresponds to a zone of the RAN comprising a plurality of cells and a plurality of RAN nodes comprising the first RAN node (UE receives zone info from eNB; see paragraphs [0072 – 0076]; this can be a neighboring zone (ie a zone for the cell in question); see paragraph [0085]; UE receives UE ID; see paragraph [0036]; the Examienr notes that the initial UE ID is assigned while in connected mode; UE in RRC_CONNECTED receives zone info transmission; see paragraph [0076]; the Examiner notes that zones are not coextensive with cells, and would touch on a plurality of cells with a plurality of RAN nodes);
store each of the zone identifier and the UE identifier in a storage device of the UE (zone ID and UE ID are received; see paragraphs [0072 – 0076] and [0036]; the Examiner notes that if information is received it is necessarily stored); and
transmit the zone identifier and the UE identifier to a second RAN node responsive to (UE reports zone ID to target cell; see paragraph [0082]):
returning to the connected mode from an inactive mode or an idle mode, or
receiving, from the first RAN node or a third RAN node, a radio resource control (RRC) handover command corresponding to a handover to the second RAN node (UE reports zone ID to target cell as part of a handover; see paragraph [0082]; the Examiner notes that handovers are mediated via RRC commands).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the UE transmitting the UE ID to a second RAN node.
Liu discloses subject matter relating to handovers. Specifically, Liu discloses the UE transmitting the zone identifier and the UE identifier to a second RAN node responsive to handover command (see paragraphs [0077 – 0078] and Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Lee with Liu by specifying that the UE include the UE ID when sending the zone ID to the RAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this would allow the RAN to identify the UE. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Liu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Lee further discloses
wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the UE to receive, store, and transmit the zone identifier comprising an address identifier of the first RAN node (zone ID includes reference location associated with transmission resource pool (ie RAN node); see paragraphs [0072 – 0076] and [0082])
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Liu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Lee further discloses
wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to further cause the UE to delete one or both of the stored zone identifier or the UE identifier based on one or more deletion criteria or in response to an indication received from the first, second, or another RAN node (UE switches zone ID regularly in response to handover; see paragraphs [0072 - 0082]).
While Lee discloses using new zone IDs, as noted above, Lee does not explicitly disclose deletion of the old zone ID.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Lee in view of Liu by specifying that the old zone ID is deleted. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as it would not be used, and would free up space. Finally, this would be obvious to try, with a reasonable expectation of success, which has been determined by the Supreme Court (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)) to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Hui - US 20220264554 A1 – Zone management
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights