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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments filed on 12/22/2025.
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.
Claims 1-3,7,8,29,34,35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (TSG RAN WG1 e-Meeting #104: Agenda Item 8.7.1.1, hereinafter 3GPP) in view of Weng et al. (CA 2750554, hereinafter Weng) in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20170201963, hereinafter Zhang)
Regarding claim 1, 3GPP discloses a communication method, performed by user equipment (UE), and comprising:
monitoring a paging occasion (PO) in response to being unable to monitor the PEI and not receiving indication information (Section 2.2: Line 10; The UE is required to monitor PO if UE misses PEI for the targeted PO in Behv-B; Section 2.2: Line 11; UE behavior based on network configuration (indication) is For Further Study (FFS); Behv-B is a stand-alone rule and solely dependent on the absence or failure of PEI detection and does not require network configuration (indication) which is for further study; Section 2.2: Table 2: Nokia; The UE can always monitor the PO; Monitoring can happen independent of PEI and network configuration (default/unconditional monitoring behavior); Section 2.2: Table 2: OPPO; No mention of network configuration is made in regards to Behv-b; Because the focus is on reliability, the PO is always monitored), wherein the UE is in a non-connected state (1 Introduction: Agreements: PEI is supported for NR idle/inactive-mode), and the indication information is configured to indicate a response behavior to the PO in a scenario where the PEI is unable to be monitored (Section 2.2: Lines 9-11; The UE behavior (monitor PO/don’t monitor PO) in response to the UE missing a PEI is based on network configuration; The network configuration is for further study).
3GPP does not disclose monitoring a PO corresponding to a PEI based on a discontinuous reception (DRX).
Weng, however, discloses DRX allows a UE to sleep and wake up to monitor to monitor paging (Background: Par. 3: Lines 2-9; DRX allows a UE to sleep and wake up to monitor to monitor paging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of 3GPP to perform the monitoring of the paging occasion based on discontinuous reception (DRX) as taught by Weng, in order to reduce power consumption while maintaining reliable paging monitoring. Since 3GPP already teaches monitoring the paging occasion when the PEI cannot be monitored (e.g., Behv-B), and Weng teaches that paging monitoring in idle/inactive states is conventionally performed using DRX sleep/wake cycles, combining these teachings would have predictably resulted in monitoring the paging occasion corresponding to the PEI based on DRX.
3GPP in view of Weng does not disclose wherein monitoring the PO corresponding to the PEI comprises: monitoring all POs corresponding to the PEI before a next PEI monitoring occasion or a paging message is received.
Zhang, however, discloses monitoring all POs within a window (Par. 37: Lines 1-2; According to eDRX, the UE monitors all POs within the window; Monitoring all paging occasions before a next PEI monitoring occasion or until a paging message is received defines a bounded window. Monitoring all paging occasions within that interval corresponds to monitoring all paging occasions within a window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of 3GPP in view of Weng to monitor all paging occasions within a defined monitoring window as taught by Zhang, since extending monitoring from a single paging occasion to all paging occasions within a bounded interval represents a predictable variation that improves the likelihood of successfully receiving paging messages when a paging early indication is missed.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, 3GPP discloses receiving the indication information sent by a network device (Section 2.2: Table 2: Lenovo, Motorola Mobility: The companies opinion is that the network should configure, per UE group, a UE behavior in the case that PEI is not detected; The UE determining the appropriate behavior based on the network configuration corresponds to receiving the indication information from a network device).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2, 3GPP discloses wherein the response behavior to the PO in the scenario where the PEI is unable to be monitored comprises:
monitoring the PO corresponding to the PEI based on the DRX in response to the indication information indicating a first value (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”); or
not monitoring the PO corresponding to the PEI in response to the indication information indicating a second value (Section 2.2: Table 2: Lenovo, Motorola Mobility; The network should configure, per UE group, a UE behavior (monitor or don’t monitor PO) in the case that PEI is not detected; The network can indicate to the UE whether or not to monitor the PO in the case that the PEI cannot be monitored. This indication information corresponds to values in the message that instruct the UE to monitor (first value) or not monitor (second value)).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 2, 3GPP discloses wherein the response behavior to the PO in the scenario where the PEI is unable to be monitored comprises:
not monitoring the PO corresponding to the PEI in response to the indication information indicating a second value (Section 2.2: Table 2: Lenovo, Motorola Mobility; The network should configure, per UE group, a UE behavior (monitor or don’t monitor PO) in the case that PEI is not detected; The network can indicate to the UE whether or not to monitor the PO in the case that the PEI cannot be monitored. This indication information corresponds to values in the message that instruct the UE to monitor (first value) or not monitor (second value)), wherein not monitoring the PO corresponding to the PEI comprises:
not monitoring the PO corresponding to the PEI before the next PEI monitoring occasion arrives (Section 2.2: Table 2: Xiamoi; When the UE does not detect the PEI, it will not monitor the corresponding PO and the network must re-page the UE in the next DRX cycle; Since POs are tied to the PEI monitoring occasions within a DRX cycle, this implies that the UE does not monitor the current PO until the next PEI monitoring occasion arrives).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, 3GPP discloses wherein being unable to monitor the PEI comprises at least one of the following:
missing the PEI monitoring occasion (Section 2.2: UE behavior if the UE misses the PEI; No patentable weight given to the remaining limitations due to the optional language “or”).
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 29 have been addressed.
A UE capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a processor, a transceiver, a memory, and a executable program stored in memory.
Regarding claim 34 as applied to claim 29, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 34. Therefore, the limitations of claim 34 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 35 as applied to claim 34, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 35. Therefore, the limitations of claim 35 have been addressed.
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (TSG RAN WG1 e-Meeting #104: Agenda Item 8.7.1.1, hereinafter 3GPP) in view of Weng et al. (CA 2750554, hereinafter Weng) in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20170201963, hereinafter Zhang) in further view of 3GPP (TSG RAN WG1 #104-e: Agenda Item 8.7.1.3, hereinafter 3GPP2)
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 2, 3GPP in view of Weng in further view of Zhang discloses receiving indication information sent by the network device (as detailed in the rejection of claim 2). 3GPP in view of Weng in further view of Zhang does not disclose wherein receiving the indication information sent by the network device comprises at least one of the following:
receiving the indication information through radio resource control (RRC) signaling; or
receiving the indication information through a system message.
3GPP2, however, discloses the ability for the UE to receive network information through a system message (Section 2.2.1 Sequence-based PEI configuration and procedure; Network information (e.g., PEI resource allocation) is provided through a system broadcast (SIB), which is a form of a system message; No patentable weight given to the remaining limitations due to the optional language “or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the indication information sent by the network of 3GPP, with the ability to send network information via a system message of 3GPP2. Using a system message to deliver such information allows efficient distribution to multiple UEs without the overhead of individual signaling, thereby ensuring consistent and reliable configuration across the cell.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (TSG RAN WG1 e-Meeting #104: Agenda Item 8.7.1.1, hereinafter 3GPP) in view of Weng et al. (CA 2750554, hereinafter Weng) in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20170201963, hereinafter Zhang) in further view of Kim et al. (KR 20210009068, hereinafter Kim)
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, 3GPP in view of Weng in further view of Zhang discloses receiving the indication information sent by a network device (as detailed in the rejection of claim 2) and responding to the PO based on the indication information received from the network device (as detailed in the rejection of claim 3). 3GPP in view of Weng in further view of Zhang does not disclose responding to the PO based on the indication information in radio resource control (RRC) signaling when receiving the indication information both through RRC signaling and a system message.
Kim, however, discloses the same type of information being sent through RRC signaling and a system message (Page 3: Lines 30-32; The UE has received information via a SIB (system message) and RRC signaling). In the case that the same type of information is received from RRC signaling and a system message, the information of the SIB is ignored (Page 3: Lines 30-32; The SIB information is ignored if information via RRC signaling is received (RRC signaling priority)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of 3GPP in view of Weng and Zhang to respond to the paging occasion based on the indication information received via RRC signaling when the same information is received via both RRC signaling and a system message, as taught by Kim, because RRC signaling conveys UE-specific configuration that is tailored to the individual UE’s state and conditions, whereas system messages provide generalized broadcast information applicable to multiple UEs, and prioritizing the UE-specific information ensures correct and optimized operation of the UE by avoiding inconsistencies with generic broadcast parameters.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648