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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 6/10/2026.
Communications via email (MPEP 502.03)
In order to advance prosecution of the instant application, the Applicants are invited to file a form PTO/SB/439, and to include, in their response, the Applicants’ contact telephone number and e-mail address:
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
There is no new ground of rejection
The instant office action doesn't add any new grounds of rejection. According to MPEP 706.07(a), guidance in determining what constitutes a new ground of rejection is best provided by MPEP § 1207.03(a); and according to MPEP § 1207.03(a):
I. Factual situations that constitute a new ground of rejection are as follows:
1. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 102 to 35 U.S.C. 103.
2. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 103 to 35 U.S.C. 102, based on a different teaching.
3. Citing new calculations in support of overlapping ranges.
4. Citing new structure in support of structural obviousness.
5. Pointing to a different portion of the claim to maintain a "new matter" rejection.
II. Factual situations that do not constitute a new ground of rejection are as follows:
1. Citing a different portion of a reference to elaborate upon that which has been cited previously.
2. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 103 to 35 U.S.C. 102, but relying on the same teachings.
3. Relying on fewer than all references in support of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, but relying on the same teachings.
4. Changing the order of references in the statement of rejection, but relying on the same teachings of those references.
5. Considering, in order to respond to applicant’s arguments, other portions of a reference submitted by the applicant.
Based on the factual situations listed in MPEP 1207.03(a), the instant office action doesn't add any new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim Interpretation
Plain Meaning (MPEP 2111.01): MPEP 2111.01 states: The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). MPEP 2111.01 part III explains that in some cases it is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In this case:
"Computer program", "program code", "computer program product", "non-transitory storage medium": Claims 20, 21 recite these terms. The specification mentions these terms in par. 112 embodiment 20; also in par. 163, 192, 193, without redefining their meanings, so they have their original meanings. Therefore, claimed "computer program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium including program code" in claim 21 is interpreted as a memory device eligible under 35 USC 101, and also isn’t a nonce word or a replacement for “means” as explained in MPEP 2181. Claim 20, however, is ineligible under 35 USC 101, as explained below.
MPEP 2111.04 "Contingent limitations", subsection II explains: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016): "the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Likewise, in this case, regarding independent method claim 1, it recites “responsive to none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE, selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE". However, the claimed invention doesn't require a step of determining that none of the broadcast TACs is a last previously selected TAC in the UE; the claim doesn't positively recite a step requiring" none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE" to be in effect. Therefore, the claimed invention may be practiced with or without the condition of "none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE" taking place. The above-mentioned excerpt of the claims is, therefore, non-limiting. In order for this contingent limitation to have weight, claim 1 would need to be amended as follows: 1. (Currently Amended) A method performed by a user equipment, UE, comprising: obtaining tracking area codes, TACs, broadcast in a cell of a network; determining that none of the broadcast TACs is a last previously selected TAC in the UE; and responsive to none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE, selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE.
MPEP 2173.05(f) Reference to limitations in another claim: Claims 18-21 are referential claims, and they incorporate all limitations of claim 1 as defined in MPEP 2173.05(f) "Reference to Limitations in Another Claim". A claim which makes reference to a preceding claim to define a limitation is an acceptable claim construction which should not necessarily be rejected as improper or confusing under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Therefore, claims 18-21 don’t raise indefiniteness issues and require all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 1 is interpreted as follows:
1. (Currently Amended) A method performed by a user equipment, UE, comprising:
obtaining tracking area codes, TACs, broadcast in a cell of a network (this was the only operation limiting claim 1. No weight is given from this point to the end of claim 1); and
responsive to none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE (meaning: as long as none of the broadcast TACs is a last previously selected TAC. This condition of the UE is non-limiting because it may not take place), selecting (this "selecting" step isn't required to take place and doesn't limit the claim, because the "selecting" step may not take place), by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter. The best reference for this claim is described as follows:
Kubo et al (publication number 2010/0255841), hereinafter Kubo, teaches (Kubo Fig. 5, [0053] [0054]) A call processing control unit 102 which registers TAIs of areas on a route along which a mobile terminal 100 has moved; based on the route and a base station information data base 414 for registering the area identifier and the base station identifier sent from each base station, selects an area identifier list, and then allocates the selection to mobile terminal 100; and transmits the TAI list to the mobile terminal 100. The mobile terminal then registers the TAI list and an area identifier broadcast from the base station where the mobile terminal has executed the last location registration. Upon a change in TAI, the mobile terminal identifies the change and adopts the new TAI as the registered TAI. Kubo falls short of classifying network functions as "access stratum" vs. "non-access stratum" functions.
Regarding claim 11, Kubo's UE receives a list of the TACs being broadcast; selects one TAC in the list of TACs to be considered as a current TAC of the UE; however, Kubo falls short of providing the same info to "access stratum" or "non-access stratum" functions. Claim 11 is based on a limitation from claim 1 which doesn't have patentable weight in itself; however, claim 11 adds more steps to claim 1 which are not found to be obvious over the prior art on record. Regarding claims 12-16, they depend on claim 11 and incorporate all limitations of claim 11, and therefore present allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 11.
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the above-mentioned claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with regards to claims and rejection analysis have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicants argue, on page 2, second par., that independent Claim 1 is Patentable. By this Amendment, independent claim 1 recites: 1. A method performed by a user equipment, UE, comprising: obtaining tracking area codes, TACs, broadcast in a cell of a network; and responsive to none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE, selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE. In the rejection of claim 1, the Office relies on paragraphs [0041], [0058], [0079], [00080], and [0080] of Kubo. Kubo discusses how, "Each base station 101 is installed in a location registration area and holds the TAI corresponding to each TA. Each base station 101 transmits the TAI held therein to the mobile terminal 100 periodically as notification information. The mobile terminal 100 receives the TAI broadcast from the base stations 101 and judges in which TA the mobile terminal currently exists and whether the location registration process is to be executed or not." (See, Paragraph [0041] of Kubo). Kubo discusses, "the process of updating the location registration information data base of the call processing control unit 102 and the mobile terminal 100 held by the user during the period when the user moves from the starting area (TAI 23) ... to the destination 801 (TAI 13) ... and returns again to the starting area (TAI 23)." (See, Paragraph [0074] of Kubo). In paragraph [0076] Kubo discusses how "The call processing control unit 102 sends the TAI list to the mobile terminal 100 during the initial connection process. In the process, the call processing control unit 102 accesses the location registration information data base 412 and judges whether TAI 23 indicating the base station A 101-1 is contained in the TAI list or not. In the case where TAI 23 is [not] so contained, a TAI list allocated to the mobile terminal 100 and containing the TA covering the base station A 101-1 and the neighboring TA is ... is created (step 701) and sent to the mobile terminal 100 (step 702)." Paragraph [0080] of Kubo also provides an example for when "the mobile terminal 100, upon movement into the area of TAI 18 (step 704), receives the notification information (including TAI 18) from the base station existing in the area of TAI 18 (step 705). In the process, the mobile terminal 100 judges whether TAI 18 is contained in the TAI list stored in the location registration information data base 212." Since TAI 18 is not so contained, the location registration process is started for the base station existing in the area of TAI 18 (step 706)." (See, Paragraph [0080] of Kubo). In a contrasting example, Kubo also discusses how "In the process, the mobile terminal 100 judges whether TAI 17 is contained in the TAI list stored in the location registration information data base 212 or not. Since TAI is so contained, the location registration process is not executed." (See, Paragraph [0061] of Kubo).
Examiner’s response to Argument 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argued step of "selecting" doesn't limit the claim. The office action explains why the reference Kubo teaches obtaining tracking area codes, TACs, broadcast in a cell of a network (Kubo [0041] Each base station 101 periodically broadcasts, as notification information, the TAI corresponding to the base station's TA. [0058] The location registration information data base 212 in the mobile terminal registers the area identifier broadcast from the base stations for which the mobile terminal has executed the last location registration, and registers the TAI list transmitted from the call processing control unit 102 – therefore, Kubo's UE obtains the TACs being broadcast). This was the only step that claim 1 required. The remainder of claim 1, such as the "selecting", doesn't have patentable weight. The office action also explains why Wang teaches selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE (Wang [0029] [0030] In step 150 of FIG. 1, the WTRU 105 receives from eNodeB system information including TAC. [0031] In step 160, the NAS protocol stack compares the TAC which represents the TA-ID of a new cell, against an existing TAC, which represents the TA-ID of a previous cell. [0032] When the TAC indicates that the WTRU is in a different tracking area, the NAS protocol stack in the WTRU generates a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, which is transmitted to the EPC network 115 – therefore, the NAS in the WTRU selects the new TAC broadcast by the eNodeB).
Argument 2: Applicants argue, on page 3, 2nd par., that in short, Kubo discusses determining whether a TAI for a given base station is contained in a TAI list, if the TAI is included within the list, then the location registration process does not need to be performed, otherwise the location registration process is performed. However, Kubo does not teach or suggest, "obtaining tracking area codes, TACs, broadcast in a cell of a network," as recited in claim 1. Specifically, the Tracking Area Identity (TAI) in Kubo cannot be relied upon to teach the Tracking Area Codes (TAC) of the claim. As an example, TAIs are global identifiers for a network's tracking area, constructed by combining the Public Land Mobile Network ID with a Tracking Area Code (TAC). TACs can be used, for example, by a node (e.g., NodeB/gNB) to inform the MME/AMF which specific tracking area a cell belongs to, facilitating paging and mobility management. Thus, while TAIs can include TACs, TAI and TAC are different entities, where TAI enables global tracking, while TAC handles localized cell grouping.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "TACs can be used, for example, by a node (e.g., NodeB/gNB) to inform the MME/AMF which specific tracking area a cell belongs to, facilitating paging and mobility management"; "TAC handles localized cell grouping") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, claim 1 doesn't require the argued statements of "TACs can be used, for example, by a node (e.g., NodeB/gNB) to inform the MME/AMF which specific tracking area a cell belongs to, facilitating paging and mobility management"; "TAC handles localized cell grouping". The office action explains that Wang uses the acronym [0008] tracking area code (TAC), and why it would have been obvious to incorporate the invention of Wang into the invention of Kubo.
Argument 3: Applicants argue, on page 3, 3rd par., that assuming, arguendo, that the TAIs in Kubo could be used to read on the claimed TACs, Kubo does not teach "selecting by ... the UE, one TAIs (alleged TACs) of the broadcast TAIs to be a current TAC of the UE." Instead, Kubo is either performing or not performing a location registration process based on whether a TAI list includes a given TAI. There is no mention in Kubo of the UE selecting a TAI of the broadcast TAI list to be a current TAC. In fact, in Kubo, if the TAI for a base station is not in the TAI list, then a location registration process is performed to ensure that the mobile device is registered for that location.
Examiner’s response to Argument 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the argued operation of "selecting" doesn't limit the claim because it may never occur, depending on whether a condition is met. The office action explains why Wang teaches selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE (Wang [0029] [0030] In step 150 of FIG. 1, the WTRU 105 receives from eNodeB system information including TAC. [0031] In step 160, the NAS protocol stack compares the TAC which represents the TA-ID of a new cell, against an existing TAC, which represents the TA-ID of a previous cell. [0032] When the TAC indicates that the WTRU is in a different tracking area, the NAS protocol stack in the WTRU generates a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, which is transmitted to the EPC network 115 – therefore, the NAS in the WTRU selects the new TAC broadcast by the eNodeB).
Argument 4: Applicants argue, on page 4, 2nd par., that furthermore, assuming arguendo, that the TAIs in Kubo could be used to read on the claimed TACs, the one TAIs (alleged TACs) of the broadcast TAIs in Kubo are not being selected to be a current TAC of the UE "responsive to none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE." Instead, as discussed above, upon entering a new area, the mobile terminal 100 in Kubo checks whether the received TAI for that area is within the locally stored TAI list. Therefore, the mobile terminal 100 in Kubo is merely checking whether a received TAI is within a stored TAI list, not determining whether the none of the TAIs in the TAI list is "a last previously selected TAC in the UE," such that the actions in Kubo are not "responsive to none of the broadcast TA Cs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE." As such, Kubo cannot reasonably be construed to teach or suggest the features of claim 1. For at least the reasons set forth above, Kubo, alone or in combination with Wang teaches or suggests each of the features of independent claim 1. Therefore, independent claim 1, and the claims depending therefrom, are patentable. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the 103 rejections of claim 1, and the claims depending therefrom, is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response to Argument 4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the argued operation of "selecting" doesn't limit the claim because it may never occur, depending on whether a condition is met. The office action explains why Wang teaches selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE (Wang [0029] [0030] In step 150 of FIG. 1, the WTRU 105 receives from eNodeB system information including TAC. [0031] In step 160, the NAS protocol stack compares the TAC which represents the TA-ID of a new cell, against an existing TAC, which represents the TA-ID of a previous cell. [0032] When the TAC indicates that the WTRU is in a different tracking area, the NAS protocol stack in the WTRU generates a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, which is transmitted to the EPC network 115 – therefore, the NAS in the WTRU selects the new TAC broadcast by the eNodeB).
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.
7.20.02.aia Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
7.23.aia Test for Obviousness
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 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-10, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (publication number 2010/0255841), hereinafter Kubo, and further in view of Wang et al (publication number 2008/0102896), hereinafter Wang.
Please refer to the following Kubo's embodiments:
[0016] [0046] FIG. 2 block diagram showing the configuration of a mobile terminal.
[0017] FIG. 3 block diagram showing the configuration of a base station.
[0019], [0055] FIG. 5 location registration process with the mobile terminal moved.
[0021], [0022], [0074] FIGs. 7A, 7B: location registration process executed during the time when the mobile terminal moves from the starting area to the destination and returns to the starting area.
Kubo uses the following terms and acronyms:
[0003] 3GPP (3rd generation partnership project); LTE (Long Term Evolution).
[0004] Tracking area (TA); TAI (Tracking Area Identity); a same value of TAI may be allocated to a plurality of base stations.
[0005] TAU: tracking area update, which is the same as location registration process.
Kubo teaches a list of broadcast TACs being selected in the UE: [0053] [0054] The call processing control unit 102 has the function of determining an area identifier list allocated to the mobile terminal 100 based on the travel route of the mobile terminal 100, and the function of transmitting the TAI list to the mobile terminal 100. [0058] The location registration information data base 212 in the mobile terminal registers the area identifier broadcast from the base stations for which the mobile terminal has executed the last location registration and the TAI list transmitted from the call processing control unit 102 – therefore, the list of broadcast TACs is being selected in the UE.
Regarding claim 1, Kubo teaches a method performed by a user equipment, UE (mobile terminal in Kubo Figs. 5, 7), comprising:
obtaining tracking area codes, TACs, broadcast in a cell of a network (Kubo [0041] Each base station 101 periodically broadcasts, as notification information, the TAI corresponding to the base station's TA. [0058] The location registration information data base 212 in the mobile terminal registers the area identifier broadcast from the base stations for which the mobile terminal has executed the last location registration, and registers the TAI list transmitted from the call processing control unit 102 – therefore, Kubo's UE obtains the TACs being broadcast); and
responsive to none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE, selecting, by Kubo [0079] TAI 23 is registered as the last visited registered TAI of the location registration information data base 212 of the mobile terminal 100. [0080] In FIGS. 7B and 8B, the mobile terminal 100, upon movement into the area of TAI 18 (step 704), receives the notification information (including TAI 18) from the base station existing in the area of TAI 18 (step 705). In the process, the mobile terminal 100 judges whether TAI 18 is contained in the TAI list stored in the location registration information data base 212. Since TAI 18 is not so contained, Kubo's UE starts the location registration for the base station existing in the area of TAI 18 (steps 706, 707). [0084] In step 715, TAI 18 is registered as the last visited registered TAI of the location registration information data base 212 – therefore, Kubo's mobile terminal registers, i.e., selects TAI 18 which is among the TAI's in the list of TAI's broadcast. The table at the bottom of Fig. 8B represents the transition of the TAI 23 being stored in the mobile terminal from TAI 23 to TAI 18, meaning that the mobile terminal replaces 23 with 18, i.e., the mobile terminal selects TAI 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
239
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kubo does not explicitly teach: "non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer".
Wang teaches (Wang uses the following terms and acronyms: [0004] [0020] LTE wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) is the same as UE; [0005] non-access stratum (NAS) protocol stack, radio resource control (RRC); [0006] LTE tracking area update (TAU); [0008] tracking area code (TAC), tracking area identification (TA-ID)) selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE (Wang [0029] [0030] In step 150 of FIG. 1, the WTRU 105 receives from eNodeB system information including TAC. [0031] In step 160, the NAS protocol stack compares the TAC which represents the TA-ID of a new cell, against an existing TAC, which represents the TA-ID of a previous cell. [0032] When the TAC indicates that the WTRU is in a different tracking area, the NAS protocol stack in the WTRU generates a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, which is transmitted to the EPC network 115 – therefore, the NAS in the WTRU selects the new TAC broadcast by the eNodeB).
Therefore, 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 disclosure of Kubo, by enabling the WTRU to generate a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, as suggested by Wang, in order to reduce the mobility area management complexities and to reduce the related signaling overhead for the mobility area update; in order to provide an optimized method for LTE WTRUs to perform cell measurement and cell reselection ranking by utilizing the LTE system information (Wang par. 4, 9). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 2, Kubo teaches further comprising: responsive to the current TAC not being in a registration area of the UE, performing a location update towards the network (Kubo [0080] In FIGS. 7B and 8B, the mobile terminal 100, upon movement into the area of TAI 18 (step 704), starts the location registration for the base station existing in the area of TAI 18 (steps 706, 707). [0005] TAU: tracking area update is the same as location registration process.).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “3. The method of Claim 1, wherein selecting, by the NAS layer or the AS layer the one TAC comprises: selecting, by the AS layer, the one TAC of the broadcast TACs; and reporting the one TAC selected in an update to the NAS layer of the UE.” However, claimed “selecting, by the AS layer” doesn’t limit the claim, and isn’t required, because it is alternative to another element already taught by prior art in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kubo teaches wherein selecting the one TAC of the broadcast TACs comprises: selecting one of the broadcast TACs based on the one of the broadcast TACs being present in a registration area of the UE (Kubo [0080] In FIGS. 7B and 8B, the mobile terminal 100, upon movement into the area of TAI 18 (step 704), verifies that TAI 18 is not contained in the list of broadcast TAIs. Kubo's mobile then terminal registers, i.e., selects TAI 18 which is among the TAI's in the list of TAI's broadcast in the area 18).
Regarding claim 5, Kubo teaches further comprising not performing a location update responsive to one of the broadcast TACs being in the registration area of the UE (Kubo [0100] Mobile terminal 100, as it moves to the area of TAI 23 (step 752), receives the notification information (information containing TAI 23) from the base station existing in the area of TAI 23 (step 753). Since TAI 23 is contained in the TAI list stored in the location registration information data base 212 (step 754), the location registration process is not required (step 755).).
Regarding claim 6, Kubo teaches: responsive to the UE entering in a cell where more than one TAC is being broadcast, selecting the one TAC from the more than one TAC (Kubo [0056] In FIG. 5, the mobile terminal 100 starts the initial connection process upon entrance into the area controlled by the base station A101-1 (TAI 23) (step 500). [0057] The call processing control unit 102 generates a TAI list allocated to the mobile terminal 100 and including the TA 23 of the base station A101-1 and TAIs 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31 of the neighboring TAs, which are sent to the mobile terminal 100 (steps 501, 502). [0059] The mobile terminal 100, while staying in the area of TAI 23, receives the notification information (containing TAI 23) from the base station A101-1 and judges whether TAI 23 is included in the TAI list - TAI 23 is so included. [0063] To execute a location registration process, the mobile terminal 100 sends a location registration message including TAI 23 of the base station for which the preceding location registration process was last executed as a value of the last visited registered TAI. Therefore, Kubo's UE registered, i.e., selected the TAI 23.)
Kubo does not explicitly teach "the UE powering on".
Wang teaches: responsive to the UE powering on in a cell where more than one TAC is being broadcast (Wang [0028] WTRU 105, when powered up or moved to a new cell and having synchronized to a serving cell serviced by the eNodeB 110, will automatically tune to the broadcast channel. [0054] When the WTRU is powered on, the list of forbidden TAs is loaded into the GMM 235), selecting the one TAC from the more than one TAC (Wang [0032] When the TAC indicates that the WTRU is in a different tracking area, the NAS protocol stack in the WTRU generates a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, which is transmitted to the EPC network 115 – therefore, the NAS in the WTRU selects the new TAC broadcast by the eNodeB).
Therefore, 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 disclosure of Kubo, by enabling the WTRU to power up in a new cell and generate a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, as suggested by Wang, in order to reduce the mobility area management complexities and to reduce the related signaling overhead for the mobility area update; in order to provide an optimized method for LTE WTRUs to perform cell measurement and cell reselection ranking by utilizing the LTE system information (Wang par. 4, 9). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 7, Kubo teaches wherein selecting the one TAC of the broadcast TACs comprises selecting the one TAC based on knowledge about a location of the UE and information about a geographical definition of tracking area borders (Kubo [0053] [0054] The call processing control unit 102 registers the TAIs of the areas on the route along which the mobile terminal 100 has moved, an area information data base 413 for registering M as the number of vertical divisions and N as the number of horizontal divisions, a base station information data base 414 for registering the area identifier and the base station identifier sent from each base station; call processing control unit 102 determines an area identifier list allocated to the mobile terminal 100 from the TAI list of the areas corresponding to a travel route of the mobile terminal. Fig. 6 shows the travel route of the mobile terminal over a map with geographical definition of tracking areas TAIs).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “8. The method of Claim 1, wherein selecting, by the AS layer, the one TAC of the broadcast TACs comprises selecting the one TAC based on information about how long the network will keep broadcasting respective TACs in the cell.” However, claimed “selecting, by the AS layer” doesn’t limit the claim, and isn’t required, because it is alternative to another element already taught by prior art in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “9. (Previously Presented) The method of Claim 1, wherein in selecting the one TAC, the AS layer favors selection and reporting of a TAC that the AS layer previously reported to the NAS layer since a last time the NAS layer communicated with the network.” However, claimed “selecting, by the AS layer” doesn’t limit the claim, and isn’t required, because it is alternative to another element already taught by prior art in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Kubo teaches wherein selecting, by the NAS layer or the AS layer the one TAC comprises selecting, by the NAS layer the one TAC of the broadcast TACs (Kubo [0084] In step 715, TAI 18 is registered as the last visited registered TAI of the location registration information data base 212 – therefore, Kubo's mobile terminal registers, i.e., selects TAI 18 which is among the TAI's in the list of TAI's broadcast.).
Regarding claim 17, Kubo does not explicitly teach "transmitting, via radio resource control, RRC, signaling, a current TAC selected towards a network base station."
Wang teaches transmitting, via radio resource control, RRC, signaling, a current TAC selected towards a network base station (Wang [0032] When the TAC indicates that the WTRU is in a different tracking area, the NAS protocol stack in the WTRU generates a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, which is transmitted to the EPC network 115. [0028] Now referring to FIGS. 1-3, the RRC unit 335 in AS protocol stack 330 of the eNodeB 110 then proceeds to broadcast system information to the whole cell via the PHY 355 of the AS protocol stack 330. It would have been obvious to enable the RRC unit 125 to transmit information originating from the WTRU).
Therefore, 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 disclosure of Kubo, by enabling the WTRU to generate a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, as suggested by Wang, in order to reduce the mobility area management complexities and to reduce the related signaling overhead for the mobility area update; in order to provide an optimized method for LTE WTRUs to perform cell measurement and cell reselection ranking by utilizing the LTE system information (Wang par. 4, 9). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 18, Kubo teaches a user equipment, UE (Kubo [0046] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the mobile terminal 100) comprising: processing circuitry (Kubo [0047] a processor (controller) 210, a program memory 211 of FIG. 2); and memory coupled with the processing circuitry (Kubo [0047] a processor (controller) 210, a program memory 211 of FIG. 2), wherein the memory includes instructions (Kubo [0047] program memory 211 for registering the program executed by the processor 210) that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the communication device to perform operations according to Claim 1 (please refer to the analysis of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kubo teaches a user equipment, UE (Kubo [0046] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the mobile terminal 100), adapted to perform according to Claim 1 (please refer to the analysis of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Kubo teaches a computer program comprising program code stored on a non-transitory storage medium, the computer program to be executed by processing circuitry (Kubo [0047] program memory 211 for registering the program executed by the processor 210) of a user equipment, UE (Kubo [0046] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the mobile terminal 100), whereby execution of the program code causes the UE to perform operations according to Claim 1 (please refer to the analysis of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, Kubo teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium including program code to be executed by processing circuitry (Kubo [0047] program memory 211 for registering the program executed by the processor 210) of a user equipment, UE (Kubo [0046] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the mobile terminal 100), whereby execution of the program code causes the user equipment, UE, to perform operations according to Claim 1 (please refer to the analysis of claim 1).
Claims 1-10, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo, in view of Wang, and further in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113-e R2-2102014 Electronic, Jan 25th – Feb 5th, 2021 Agenda Item: 8.10.3.1 Source: CMCC Title: Summary of email discussion [AT113-e][104][NTN] TAC update (CMCC) retrieved from https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_113-e/Docs?sortby=daterev and cited in IDS, hereinafter R2-2102014.
Regarding claim 1, Kubo teaches a method performed by a user equipment, UE (mobile terminal in Kubo Figs. 5, 7), comprising:
obtaining tracking area codes, TACs, broadcast in a cell of a network (Kubo [0041] Each base station 101 periodically broadcasts, as notification information, the TAI corresponding to the base station's TA. [0058] The location registration information data base 212 in the mobile terminal registers the area identifier broadcast from the base stations for which the mobile terminal has executed the last location registration, and registers the TAI list transmitted from the call processing control unit 102 – therefore, Kubo's UE obtains the TACs being broadcast); and
responsive to none of the broadcast TACs being a last previously selected TAC in the UE, selecting, by Kubo [0079] TAI 23 is registered as the last visited registered TAI of the location registration information data base 212 of the mobile terminal 100. [0080] In FIGS. 7B and 8B, the mobile terminal 100, upon movement into the area of TAI 18 (step 704), receives the notification information (including TAI 18) from the base station existing in the area of TAI 18 (step 705). In the process, the mobile terminal 100 judges whether TAI 18 is contained in the TAI list stored in the location registration information data base 212. Since TAI 18 is not so contained, Kubo's UE starts the location registration for the base station existing in the area of TAI 18 (steps 706, 707). [0084] In step 715, TAI 18 is registered as the last visited registered TAI of the location registration information data base 212 – therefore, Kubo's mobile terminal registers, i.e., selects TAI 18 which is among the TAI's in the list of TAI's broadcast. The table at the bottom of Fig. 8B represents the transition of the TAI 23 being stored in the mobile terminal from TAI 23 to TAI 18, meaning that the mobile terminal replaces 23 with 18, i.e., the mobile terminal selects TAI 18).
Kubo does not explicitly teach: "non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer".
Wang teaches selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE (Wang [0029] [0030] In step 150 of FIG. 1, the WTRU 105 receives from eNodeB system information including TAC. [0031] In step 160, the NAS protocol stack compares the TAC which represents the TA-ID of a new cell, against an existing TAC, which represents the TA-ID of a previous cell. [0032] When the TAC indicates that the WTRU is in a different tracking area, the NAS protocol stack in the WTRU generates a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, which is transmitted to the EPC network 115 – therefore, the NAS in the WTRU selects the new TAC broadcast by the eNodeB).
Therefore, 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 disclosure of Kubo, by enabling the WTRU to generate a TAU request message 165 including the TA-ID of the new cell, as suggested by Wang, in order to reduce the mobility area management complexities and to reduce the related signaling overhead for the mobility area update; in order to provide an optimized method for LTE WTRUs to perform cell measurement and cell reselection ranking by utilizing the LTE system information (Wang par. 4, 9). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Kubo as modified does not explicitly teach "selecting by a layer of the UE".
R2-2102014 teaches selecting, by a non-access stratum, NAS, layer or an access stratum, AS, layer of the UE, one TAC of the broadcast TACs to be a current TAC of the UE. (R2-2102014 page 18, paragraph above question 6: AS reports multiple TACs per PLMN to NAS for cell selection; and NAS has to determine whether to trigger registration update based on reported multiple TACs per PLMN. Page 18 in the table below question 6: MEDIATEK's comment that during registration procedure the NAS should select one of the several broadcasted TACs for the UE.)
Therefore, 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 disclosure of Kubo as modified, by adopting MEDIATEK's comment that during registration procedure the NAS should select one of the several broadcasted TACs for the UE, as suggested by R2-2102014, in order to resolve the compromise between hard and soft TAI update solutions where the soft TAI update solution can mitigate the increasing TAI update signaling with the problem of paging overhead, while the hard TAI update option has the problem of signaling overhead and boundary fluctuation (R2-2102014 page 2). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claims 2-10, 17-21, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons explained in the previous section of this office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights