DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the preliminary amendment field on 07/31/2023. Claims 1-16, 19, 31, and 35-36, of which claims 1, 13 and 19 are independent, were pending in this application and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the Applicant's indication of National Stage entry from the International Application No. PCT/CN2021/074858 field 02/02/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2023 and 04/09/2024 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claims 1, 2-12, 16 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 1, claim recites the limitation “determining a paging group of the UE” (line 7 of claim 1), which is vague and indefinite, because the claim already recites “A method for determining a user paging group, performed by a user equipment (UE)” (line 1 of claim 1). It is not clear what the difference is between “user paging group” and “paging group of the UE”, which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is recommended to replace the limitation with the phrase --determining the user paging group--.
Regarding claim 16, claim recites the limitation “forwarding by an anchor base station the second paging group parameter to a non-anchor base station via an interface message between base stations” (line 3 of claim 16), which term “base stations” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what the term “base stations” is referring to and whether it includes anchor base station, or non-anchor base station, or both of them, or none of them, which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-12 and 35, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claim 1.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See also MPEP § 2131.02. "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the … claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131.01. ("(A) Prove a primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.").
Claims 1-15, 19, 31, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0245246 A1 to Dhanda et al.
Regarding claim 1, Dhanda et al. disclose a method for determining a user paging group, performed by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 3: “UE”), comprising: receiving at least one of a first paging group parameter (Fig. 3: “6. ATTACH/TAU ACCEPT (WUS sub-group ID)"; ¶ [0074]: "the MME may provide, to the UE ... the attach accept message or the tracking are update message may identify which WUS sub-group is assigned to the UE") or a second paging group parameter (Fig. 3: "2. SYSTEM INFORMATION BLOCK (WUS sub-group to service ID)"; ¶[0072]: "the base station may provide system information to the UE ... the system information may identify the set of WUS sub-groups") sent by a network side device (Fig. 3: "BS'; ¶[0072]: "the base station may provide system information"; ¶[0074]: "the MME may provide, to the UE and via the base station"), wherein the first paging group parameter is determined by a core network device (¶[0074]: "MME-level WUS subgroup identifier”), and the second paging group parameter is determined by an access network device (¶[0065]: "base station-level WUS subgroup"); and determining a paging group of the UE based on the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter (¶[0076]: "the UE may identify the base-station level WUS sub-group based at least in part on being configured with the base station-level WUS sub-group ... or may identify the base station-level WUS sub-group based at least in part on being configured with the MME level WUS sub-group and using information identifying the mapping").
Regarding claim 2, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein the UE is in an idle state (Fig. 3: “330”), and the first paging group parameter is determined by negotiating with the core network device through a non-access stratum (NAS) procedure (¶[0074]: “As shown by reference number 330, the UE and the MME may perform a non-access stratum (NAS) security procedure as part of the RRC connection establishment procedure.”).
Regarding claim 3, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein the UE is in an inactive state (Fig. 3: “330”), and at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter is determined by the access network device based on at least one of: auxiliary information provided by the core network device (¶[0074]: "the MME may provide, to the UE and via the base station … MME-level WUS subgroup identifier”); or auxiliary information obtained from the UE (¶[0074]: “the MME may indicate the WUS sub-group to which the UE is assigned so that the UE can monitor the appropriate WUS occasion”).
Regarding claim 4, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein the network side device is the access network device (Fig. 3: “BS”), and receiving the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter sent by the access network device, comprises: receiving by the UE the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter sent by the access network device via a broadcast signaling or a dedicated signaling (Fig. 3: “315”; ¶[0072]: “the base station may provide system information to the UE … the system information may identify the set of WUS subgroups.”).
Regarding claim 5, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein determining the paging group of the UE based on the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter, comprises: selecting a target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on a protocol (¶[0069]: “In the second example mapping, a highest two MME-level WUS sub-groups (according to index) are mapped to a highest BS-level WUS sub-group.”)); and determining the paging group of the UE based on the target paging group parameter (¶[0069]) {it should be noted that each example mapping follow a “protocol”, e.g., “highest two MME-level WUS sub-groups (according to index) are mapped to a highest BS-level WUS sub-group.” In second example mapping}.
Regarding claim 6, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein each of the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter has a priority (¶[0069]), and selecting the target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on the protocol, comprises: selecting the target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on the first priority and the second priority (¶[0069]: “In the second example mapping, a highest two MME-level WUS sub-groups (according to index) are mapped to a highest BS-level WUS sub-group.”) {e.g., highest MME-level is a priority}.
Regarding claim 7, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein selecting the target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter and/or or the second paging group parameter based on the protocol, comprises selecting one of: a maximum value of the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter (¶[0069]: “In the second example mapping, a highest two MME-level WUS sub-groups (according to index) are mapped to a highest BS-level WUS sub-group.”), a minimum value of the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter (¶[0069]: “In the third example mapping, a lowest and a highest MME-level WUS sub-group ( according to index) are mapped to a lowest BS-level WUS sub-group”), the first paging group parameter; or the second paging group parameter.
Regarding claim 8, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein determining the paging group of the UE based on the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter, comprises: receiving a configuration instruction (¶[0071]: “a rule or configuration for mapping”; ¶[0069]); selecting a target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on the configuration instruction (¶[0071]; ¶[0069]); and determining the paging group of the UE based on the target paging group parameter (¶[0076]: “the UE may determine a WUS occasion based at least in part on a base station-level WUS sub-group of the UE.”).
Regarding claim 9, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose determining that the UE is in an idle state or an inactive state (Fig. 3: “355 IDLE”).
Regarding claim 10, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein selecting the target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on the protocol, comprises: selecting the target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on a state of the UE (¶[0076]: “As shown by reference number 355, the UE may be in idle mode after releasing the RRC connection. Accordingly, as shown by reference number 360, the UE may monitor a WUS occasion corresponding to the WUS subgroup configured for the UE.”).
Regarding claim 11, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein selecting the target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on the protocol, comprises: determining a paging type monitored by the UE; and selecting the target paging group parameter from the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on the paging type monitored by the UE (¶[0076: “the UE may monitor a WUS occasion corresponding to the WUS subgroup configured for the UE … the UE may determine a WUS occasion based at least in part on a base station-level WUS sub-group of the UE.”).
Regarding claim 12, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein determining the paging group of the UE based on the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter, comprises: determining the paging group of the UE based on the at least one of the received first paging group parameter or the received second paging group parameter, wherein the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter is consistent with a paging group parameter specified in a protocol or indicated by the access network device (¶[0076]: “the UE may identify the base station-level WUS sub-group based at least in part on being configured with the base station-level WUS sub-group as described in connection with reference number 335, or may identify the base station level WUS sub-group based at least in part on being configured with the MME-level WUS sub-group and using information identifying the mapping.”).
Regarding claim 13, Dhanda et al. disclose a method for determining a user paging group, performed by a network side device (Fig3: "BS”; ¶[0072]: "the base station may provide system information"; ¶[0074]: "the MME may provide, to the UE and via the base station"), comprising: sending at least one of a first paging group parameter (Fig. 3: "6. ATTACH/TAU ACCEPT (WUS sub-group ID)"; ¶[0074]: "the MME may provide, to the UE ... the attach accept message or the tracking are update message may identify which WUS sub-group is assigned to the UE") or a second paging group parameter (Fig. 3: "2. SYSTEM INFORMATION BLOCK (WUS sub-group to service ID)"; ¶[0072]: "the base station may provide system information to the UE ... the system information may identify the set of WUS sub-groups") to a user equipment (UE), wherein the first paging group parameter is determined by a core network device (¶[0074]: "MME-level WUS subgroup identifier"), and the second paging group parameter is determined by an access network device (¶[0065]: "base station-level WUS sub-group").
Regarding claim 14, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein the network side device is the access network device (Fig. 3: “BS”), and the method further comprises: determining by the access network device the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter based on at least one of: auxiliary information provided by the core network device (¶[0074]: "the MME may provide, to the UE and via the base station … MME-level WUS subgroup identifier”); or auxiliary information obtained from the UE ¶[0074]: “the MME may indicate the WUS sub-group to which the UE is assigned so that the UE can monitor the appropriate WUS occasion”), wherein the UE is in an inactive state (Fig. 3: “330”).
Regarding claim 15, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose wherein sending the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter to the UE, comprises: sending by the access network device the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter to the UE via a broadcast signaling or a dedicated signaling (Fig. 3: 315; ¶[0072]: “the base station may provide system information to the UE ... the system information may identify the set of WUS subgroups”), wherein the UE is in an inactive state (Fig. 3: “330”).
Regarding claim 19, Dhanda et al. disclose a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 3: “UE”), comprising: a transceiver (implicit), a memory, and a processor connected to the transceiver and the memory respectively (¶[0021]: “the UE may include a memory and one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory. The memory and the one or more processors may be configured to provide …”), and configured to: receive at least one of a first paging group parameter Fig. 3: “6. ATTACH/TAU ACCEPT (WUS sub-group ID)"; ¶ [0074]: "the MME may provide, to the UE ... the attach accept message or the tracking are update message may identify which WUS sub-group is assigned to the UE") or a second paging group parameter (Fig. 3: "2. SYSTEM INFORMATION BLOCK (WUS sub-group to service ID)"; ¶[0072]: "the base station may provide system information to the UE ... the system information may identify the set of WUS sub-groups") sent by a network side device (Fig. 3: "BS'; ¶[0072]: "the base station may provide system information"; ¶[0074]: "the MME may provide, to the UE and via the base station"), wherein the first paging group parameter is determined by a core network device (¶[0074]: "MME-level WUS subgroup identifier”), and the second paging group parameter is determined by an access network device (¶[0065]: "base station-level WUS subgroup"); and determine a paging group of the UE based on the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter (¶[0076]: "the UE may identify the base-station level WUS sub-group based at least in part on being configured with the base station-level WUS sub-group ... or may identify the base station-level WUS sub-group based at least in part on being configured with the MME level WUS sub-group and using information identifying the mapping")..
Regarding claim 31, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose a network side device (Fig. 3: “BS”), comprising: a transceiver (implicit), a memory, and a processor connected to the transceiver and the memory respectively, and configured (¶[0019: “the computer program product may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions. The one or more instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a base station …”).
Regarding claim 35, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose a non-transitory computer storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a processor of a user equipment (UE),cause the UE (¶[0023]: “the computer program product may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions. The one or more instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a UE, may cause the one or more processors to provide …”).
Regarding claim 36, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Dhanda et al. also disclose non-transitory computer storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a processor of a network side device, cause the network side device (¶[0019: “the computer program product may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions. The one or more instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a base station …”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The foregoing obviousness inquiry requires an expansive and flexible approach, not a rigid approach demanding express teachings, suggestions and motivations to combine prior art teachings. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 97 (US 2007). The rationale supporting a conclusion of obviousness should be made explicit for review, but the rationale does not require precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim. Id. at 1396. A rejection can rely on inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. Obviousness rejections are not limited to showing the obviousness of solutions to the problems Applicant was trying to solve. Id. at 1397. Rather, one can show obviousness of a claim by establishing the obviousness of any solution to any known problem in the field of endeavor and addressed by a patent application's subject matter. Id. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is possessed of ordinary creativity. Id. One of ordinary skill could find alternative uses for prior art elements beyond the elements' primary purposes and fit prior art teachings together like a puzzle. Id. A combination of prior art teachings does not require absolute predictability. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006). All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dhanda et al.
Regarding claim 16, Dhanda et al. disclose as stated above. Except for expressly teaching forwarding by an anchor base station the second paging group parameter to a non-anchor base station via an interface message between base stations, wherein the access network device is the anchor base station. Dhanda et al. disclose base station as an access network (Fig. 3: BS). However, using anchor or non-anchor base station in place of the disclosed base station merely define one of several straightforward possibilities which the skilled person would select, depending on the circumstances, in order to solve the problem posed. Furthermore, such replacement appears to present no unexpected technological advances in the art. Under KSR the known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives and is considered obvious. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try to choose from a finites number of ways to obtain the position location information of the vehicle, to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
There are four statutory classes of invention defined in 35 USC § 101: machine, process, article of manufacture and composition of matter. 35 USC § 101. The Supreme Court of the United States has further delineated several subject matter exceptions that are ineligible for patenting. Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010); MPEP § 2106. In particular, claims embracing abstract ideas, physical phenomena and laws of nature are patent ineligible. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), slip op., at 5 (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S 576 (2013), slip op., at 11)); Bilski at 1005-06; MPEP § 2106. According to Alice, the two part analysis of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) should be used for all types of judicial exceptions and all categories of claims. Alice Corp., slip op., at 7, 16, 17. The first part of the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent- ineligible concept." Alice Corp., slip op., at 7. Upon determining that an abstract idea is present in the claim, the second part of the analysis is to determine whether the claim "contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Alice Corp., slip op., at 11 (citing Mayo, slip op., at 3, 11). Claims, therefore, must do more than merely add insignificant limitations, such as limiting the field of use, adding token extra solution activity that lacks a particular machine or transform and adding wholly conventional machines and acts. See Alice Corp., slip op., at 12-13 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention . “Stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it with a computer' simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result."); Bilski at 1009-10; MPEP § 2106.
Claims 1-16, 19, 31, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “A method for determining a user paging group … determining a paging group of the UE based on the at least one of the first paging group parameter or the second paging group parameter,” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “a user equipment (UE),” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (UE) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receiving at least one of a first paging group parameter or a second paging group parameter sent by a network side device,” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “wherein the first paging group parameter is determined by a core network device, and the second paging group parameter is determined by an access network device,” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (network paging) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine a paging based on paging group parameter(s).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “receiving at least one of a first paging group parameter or a second paging group parameter sent by a network side device,” is just receiving/transmitting data over a network, which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (network paging) using a generic computer.
Regarding claims 19 and 35, claims recite similar limitations as those of claim 1 and additional elements: “a transceiver, a memory, and a processor connected to the transceiver and the memory respectively” and “a non-transitory computer storage medium having stored thereon instructions”. The additional elements are applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 5, etc. fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 8, etc. fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: As applied to the claims above, the specific columns, line numbers, and figures in the references has been cited for the Applicant’s convenience. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the particular limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references, in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner, in preparing responses. Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2123 I. states: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Shi et al. (US 2022/0095094 A1) is equivalent of IDS reference WO 2020/147122 A1; Dhanda et al. (US 2020/0245246 A1) is equivalent of IDS reference WO 2020/160272 A1; Shi et al. (US 2022/0174644 A1) is equivalent of IDS reference WO 2020/206632A1; Youn et al. (US 2020/0077356 A1) is equivalent of IDS reference CN 110402604 A.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA, or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631