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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoo et al (US 20190191483), hereinafter referred to as Ryoo in view of Li et al (US 2021/0045181), hereinafter referred as Li.
Regarding claim 1, A method for mode switching [see fig. 1-3, 9A, 10], comprising:
sending, by a first communication apparatus [see fig. 9A, 10 and 1-3], a first signal [signal/paging] to a second communication apparatus [see fig. 9A, 10 and 1-3], wherein the first signal is a physical layer signal [control and paging signaling in the art are physical layer signaling based on attributes/bits associated with physical layer, see Ryoo paragraphs 0070 and 0072, 0121-0125] and indicates that the first communication apparatus requests to switch a mode of the first communication apparatus, the mode comprises a first mode [RRC connected state] and a second mode [idle/inactive state], and there is configured correspondence between the mode and a service type of the first communication apparatus [Ryoo figures 6-7 and paragraphs 0105-0108, 0110-0114 illustrates, that when an event occurs (new traffic corresponding to network specific UE context information) and the terminal is in the RRC inactive state, a transition may be made from the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state. This clearly establishes that a configured correspondence between the mode (RRC states) and a service type ( for the specific UE context information, ); also see paragraph 0185 activity timer applicable for each service; table may include information regarding an inactivity timer for switch from RRC active state to RRC inactive state; Also note under BRI interpretation, RRC inactivity mode may be considered an energy saving mode and when the RRC mode transitions to RRC connected state based on a new traffic corresponding to network specific UE, this also reads on configured correspondence between the mode and service type]; and switching, by the first communication apparatus, the mode [see paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0072-0074, 0121, 0123-0125, 0139, 0170-0183, Table 5, 0264, 0265, fig. 1-3, 9A, event triggering condition/signal between first communication apparatus and second apparatus enables switching modes from RRC connected state to the idle/inactive state. This is based on QoS requirement characteristics such as latency for each of supported service such as eMBB, URLLC and mMTC as mentioned in paragraph 0010]. While Ryoo teaches of communication between devices to switch mode, Ryoo is slient on wherein the first communication apparatus determines to request to switch the mode based on a change in service requirements of the first communications apparatus; receiving by the first response information from the second communications apparatus, wherein the first response information indicates that the second communication apparatus allows the first communication apparatus to switch the mode; and switching, by the first communication apparatus, the mode in response to receiving the first response information. Li in the same field of endeavor teaches of switching between OMA and NOMA modes of a UE can be determined and indicated by a gNB to a UE at an RRC connected state (see abstract). Li teaches in paragraph 0144,
wherein the first communication apparatus determines to request to switch the mode based on a change in service requirements of the first communications apparatus [see Li paragraph 0165-0166, based on the QOS related metrics, quality/load level (i.e. service requirement), the UE may decide on the use of NOMA or OMA; a UE may send a request to initiate NOMA or OMA mode switching]; receiving by the first response information from the second communications apparatus, wherein the first response information indicates that the second communication apparatus allows the first communication apparatus to switch the mode [Once gNB receives the request, it may make a decision and the UE may be signaled with the option to switch mode, i.e. permission granted, see paragraph 0166-0170]; and switching, by the first communication apparatus, the mode in response to receiving the first response information [a UE may be signaled to perform the OMA and NOMA mode switching as requested, see Li paragraph 0165-0170]. Li teaches in paragraph 0120-0121, 0128-0129, that a UE may operate in both OMA and NOMA mode and depending on the service and/or network traffic conditions, a UE may switch between the modes. Paragraph 0172, 0194-0199 of Li further discloses that the gNB may pre-configure a dedicated resources for NOMA mode based on service type. In this case, the OMA NOMA switching may be implicitly indicated by the BWP configuration. For example, BWP1 in fig. 14b is pre-configured to be reserved for NOMA users. Additionally, paragraphs 0113-0114 mentions that in URLLC use scenario, NOMA enable efficient used of grant-free transmission and therefore benefits URLLC low latency use cases, which in turn improves the efficiency of the resource utilization, providing higher reliability. This clearly establishes switching mode for OMA to NOMA based on change of service requirement. NOMA mode can be more suitable mode for a high-efficiency mode such as URLLC (Ultra-reliable low-latency communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the mode switching between OMA and NOMA based on service type of Li into Ryoo in order to perform mode switching based on QoS requirements to reduce latency and increase reliability.
Regarding claim 14, A method for mode switching [see fig. 9A, 10 and paragraphs 0170-0186], comprising:
receiving, by a second communication apparatus [Base Station, fig. 10], a first signal [control/paging-UE inactivity timer signal, see fig. 10], wherein the first signal is a physical layer signal [control and paging signaling in the art are physical layer signaling based on attributes/bits associated with physical layer, see Ryoo paragraphs 0070 and 0072, 0121-0125] and indicates that a first communication apparatus switch a mode of the first communication apparatus [UE], the mode comprises a first mode [e.g. switching from the RRC connective active state to the RRC inactive state] and a second mode [RRC active/idle state], and there is configured correspondence between the mode and a service type of the first communication apparatus [Ryoo figures 6-7 and paragraphs 0105-0108, 0110-0114 illustrates, that when an event occurs (new traffic corresponding to network specific UE context information) and the terminal is in the RRC inactive state, a transition may be made from the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state. This clearly establishes that a configured correspondence between the mode (RRC states) and a service type ( for the specific UE context information, ); also see paragraph 0185 activity timer applicable for each service; table may include information regarding an inactivity timer for switch from RRC active state to RRC inactive state; Also note under BRI interpretation, RRC inactivity mode may be considered an energy saving mode and when the RRC mode transitions to RRC connected state based on a new traffic corresponding to network specific UE, this also reads on configured correspondence between the mode and service type]; and determining, by the second communication apparatus [Base Station], the mode of the first communication apparatus [see paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0072-0074, 0121, 0123-0125, 0139, 0170-0186, Table 5, 0264, 0265, fig. 1-3, 9A, 10 event triggering condition/signal between first communication apparatus and second apparatus enables switching modes from RRC connected state to the idle/inactive state. This is based on QoS requirement characteristics such as latency for each of supported service such as eMBB, URLLC and mMTC as mentioned in paragraph 0010]. while Ryoo teaches of communication between devices to switch mode, Ryoo is slient on wherein the first communication apparatus determines to request to switch the mode based on a change in service requirements of the first communications apparatus, wherein the mode is one of a data transmission mode, a non-data transmission mode, a high-efficiency mode, an energy-saving mode, a small-packet transmission mode, or a large-packet transmission mode; determining, by the second communication apparatus, the mode of the first communications apparatus; and sending, by the second communication apparatus to the first communication apparatus, the first response information indicating that the second communication apparatus allows the first communication apparatus to switch the mode. Additionally, Ryoo is also silent on “...there is a pre-defined or configured correspondence between the mode and a service type of the first communications apparatus…”. Li in the same field of endeavor teaches of switching between OMA and NOMA modes of a UE can be determined and indicated by a gNB to a UE at an RRC connected state (see abstract). Li teaches in paragraph 0144,
wherein the first communication apparatus determines to request to switch the mode based on a change in service requirements of the first communications apparatus [see Li paragraph 0165-0166, based on the QOS related metrics, quality/load level (i.e. service requirement), the UE may decide on the use of NOMA or OMA; a UE may send a request to initiate NOMA or OMA mode switching]; determining, by the second communication apparatus, the mode of the first communications apparatus[gNB determines the mode of the UE when it receives a request to switch modes, see paragraph 0166-0170]; sending, by the second communication apparatus to the first communication apparatus, the first response information indicating that the second communication apparatus allows the first communication apparatus to switch the mode. [Once gNB receives the request, it may make a decision and the UE may be signaled with the option to switch mode, i.e. permission granted, see paragraph 0166-0170]; and switching, by the first communication apparatus, the mode in response to receiving the first response information [a UE may be signaled to perform the OMA and NOMA mode switching as requested, see Li paragraph 0165-0168]. Li teaches in paragraph 0120-0121, 0128-0129, that a UE may operate in both OMA and NOMA mode and depending on the service and/or network traffic conditions, a UE may switch between the modes. Paragraph 0172, 0194-0199 of Li further discloses that the gNB may pre-configure a dedicated resources for NOMA mode based on service type. In this case, the OMA NOMA switching may be implicitly indicated by the BWP configuration. For example, BWP1 in fig. 14b is pre-configured to be reserved for NOMA users. Additionally, paragraphs 0113-0114 mentions that in URLLC use scenario, NOMA enable efficient used of grant-free transmission and therefore benefits URLLC low latency use cases, which in turn improves the efficiency of the resource utilization, providing higher reliability. This clearly establishes switching mode for OMA to NOMA based on change of service requirement. NOMA mode can be more suitable mode for a high-efficiency mode such as URLLC (Ultra-reliable low-latency communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the mode switching between OMA and NOMA based on service type of Li into Ryoo in order to perform mode switching based on QoS requirements to reduce latency and increase reliability.
Regarding claim 20, A communication apparatus [UE 110, fig. 8 and 10], comprising a transmitter, a switching device, at least one processor, and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor [UE 110 of fig. 8 and 10 has a transmitter, processor, memory and switching components], the at least one memory storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to:
send, by the transmitter [transmitter of terminal 110], a first signal [RRC state transition report message, e.g. UE RRC state report] to a second communication apparatus [Base Station 120], wherein the first signal [RRC state transition report message, e.g. UE RRC state report] is a physical layer signal [control and paging signaling in the art are physical layer signaling based on attributes/bits associated with physical layer, see Ryoo paragraphs 0070 and 0072, 0121-0125] and indicates that the communication apparatus requests to switch a mode [make a RRC transition state, see 0170-0186, fig. 8, 10] of the communication apparatus, the mode comprises a first mode [e.g. RRC inactive] and a second mode [e.g. RRC active or idle state], and there is configured correspondence between the mode and a service type of the first communication apparatus [Ryoo figures 6-7 and paragraphs 0105-0108, 0110-0114 illustrates, that when an event occurs (new traffic corresponding to network specific UE context information) and the terminal is in the RRC inactive state, a transition may be made from the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state. This clearly establishes that a configured correspondence between the mode (RRC states) and a service type ( for the specific UE context information, ); also see paragraph 0185 activity timer applicable for each service; table may include information regarding an inactivity timer for switch from RRC active state to RRC inactive state; Also note under BRI interpretation, RRC inactivity mode may be considered an energy saving mode and when the RRC mode transitions to RRC connected state based on a new traffic corresponding to network specific UE, this also reads on configured correspondence between the mode and service type]; and switch, by the switching device, the mode [receives a confirmation message e.g. RRC state transition response) from base station first and then make an RRC state transition, see 0170-0186, fig. 8, 10]. While Ryoo teaches of communication between devices to switch mode, Ryoo is slient on wherein the first communication apparatus determines to request to switch the mode based on a change in service requirements of the first communications apparatus; receive, by the transceiver, first response information from the second communications apparatus, wherein the first response information indicates that the second communication apparatus allows the first communication apparatus to switch the mode; and switch, by the switching device, the mode in response to receiving the first response information. Li in the same field of endeavor teaches of switching between OMA and NOMA modes of a UE can be determined and indicated by a gNB to a UE at an RRC connected state (see abstract). Li teaches in paragraph 0144,
wherein the first communication apparatus determines to request to switch the mode based on a change in service requirements of the first communications apparatus [see Li paragraph 0165-0166, based on the QOS related metrics, quality/load level (i.e. service requirement), the UE may decide on the use of NOMA or OMA; a UE may send a request to initiate NOMA or OMA mode switching]; receive, by the transceiver, first response information from the second communications apparatus, wherein the first response information indicates that the second communication apparatus allows the first communication apparatus to switch the mode [Once gNB receives the request, it may make a decision and the UE may be signaled with the option to switch mode, i.e. permission granted, see paragraph 0166-0170]; and switch, by the switching device, the mode in response to receiving the first response information [a UE may be signaled to perform the OMA and NOMA mode switching as requested, see Li paragraph 0165-0170, fig. 13-14]. Li teaches in paragraph 0120-0121, 0128-0129, that a UE may operate in both OMA and NOMA mode and depending on the service and/or network traffic conditions, a UE may switch between the modes. Paragraph 0172, 0194-0199 of Li further discloses that the gNB may pre-configure a dedicated resources for NOMA mode based on service type. In this case, the OMA NOMA switching may be implicitly indicated by the BWP configuration. For example, BWP1 in fig. 14b is pre-configured to be reserved for NOMA users. Additionally, paragraphs 0113-0114 mentions that in URLLC use scenario, NOMA enable efficient used of grant-free transmission and therefore benefits URLLC low latency use cases, which in turn improves the efficiency of the resource utilization, providing higher reliability. This clearly establishes switching mode for OMA to NOMA based on change of service requirement. NOMA mode can be more suitable mode for a high-efficiency mode such as URLLC (Ultra-reliable low-latency communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the mode switching between OMA and NOMA based on service type of Li into Ryoo in order to perform mode switching based on QoS requirements to reduce latency and increase reliability.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, wherein [note: claims are written in an “or” alternate form]:
in response to at least that the service type of the first communication apparatus is an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) type or URLLC type [This is based on QoS requirement characteristics such as latency for each of supported service such as eMBB, URLLC and mMTC as mentioned in paragraph 0010, see fig. 2, and 9A] the first mode comprises at least one of an idle state or an inactive state, and the second mode comprises a connected state [see Ryoo paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0072-0074, 0121, 0123-0125, 0139, 0170-0186, Table 5, 0264, 0265, fig. 1-3, 9A, 10 event triggering condition/signal between first communication apparatus and second apparatus enables switching modes from RRC connected state to the idle/inactive state]
Regarding claims 4 and 17, wherein the first signal is a sounding reference signal (SRS), a scheduling request (SR), or a preamble sequence [event triggering condition/signal (paging signal, see Ryoo 0070, 0094, 0121-0125 and Table 5) between first communication apparatus and second apparatus enables switching modes from RRC connected state to the idle/inactive state.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, wherein the first signal comprises identifier information of the first communication apparatus [wherever an RRC state transition event occurs, the base station transmits a control signal to the terminal to control the terminal to change the RRC state, clearly establishing identifier information of the first apparatus, see Ryoo paragraphs 0179-0180 and table 9].
Regarding claims 6 and 19, wherein the first signal is a dedicated mode switching request signal [paging signal are considered dedicated signals in the technology since these signals are transmitted to specific devices, in this case, base station transmits a control signal to the terminal to control the terminal to change the RRC state, see Ryoo 0121-0125, 0179-0180].
Regarding claim 7, wherein there is a correspondence between a frame structure of the first signal and the service type of the first communication apparatus [see Ryoo fig. 11 and paragraph 0190, 0192, mention about what the RRC configuration message includes information where service type index update operation between the terminal and base station is sent].
Regarding claim 11, wherein the method further comprises: in response to at least that the mode of the first communication apparatus [UE] is the second mode [inactivity state], switching, by the first communication apparatus [UE], from the second mode [inactivity state] to the first mode [idle state] based on a timer [see Ryoo fig. 10, 12, and 15, see 0170-0186 where UE changes mode based on RRC inactive timer expiration and transition from inactivity to RRC idle state].
Regarding claim 12, Ryoo is silent on wherein the first response information comprises at least one of downlink control information (DCI), an acknowledgment (ACK) character, a negative acknowledgment (NACK) character, or higher layer signaling. Li teaches in figs. 7-8, 0144, 0153-0160 that the first response information comprises of DCI signaling . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the teaches of Ryoo by being able to sending DCI signaling messages as shown by Li in order to ensure quality of service.
Regarding claim 13, Ryoo in view of Li is silent on wherein the second response information comprises at least one of DCI, an ACK, a NACK, or higher layer signaling. Li teaches in figs. 7-8, 0144, 0153-0160 that the second response information comprises of DCI signaling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the teaches of Ryoo by being able to sending DCI signaling messages as shown by Li in order to ensure quality of service.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoo et al (US 20190191483) in view of Li and further in view of Liang et al (US 12,177,828), hereinafter referred to as Liang.
Regarding claim 9, Ryoo in view of Li teaches of event triggering condition/signal between first communication apparatus and second apparatus enables switching modes from RRC connected state to the idle/inactive state. Ryoo in view of Li fails to teach wherein the first signal indicates a request from a group of communication apparatuses to perform mode switching, and the first communication apparatus is comprised in the group of communication apparatuses. Liang invention teaches a method of resource allocation, resource release and transmitting of information related to the resource to a group member terminal. Liang teaches in figures 3-7 and associated portion of the specification of a UE transmitting information signal to a group of member UEs. This includes RRC message related to idle and inactive state modes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the teaches of Ryoo in view of Li by being able to sending signaling messages to group of member terminals as shown by Liang in order to reduce processing time on resources allocations and release to a group of terminals.
Regarding claim 10, Ryoo teaches paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0072-0074, 0121, 0123-0125, 0139, Table 5, 0264, 0265, fig. 1-3, 9A of receiving, by the first communication apparatus, second response information from the second communication apparatus. Ryoo in view of Li is silent on sending, by the first communication apparatus, a mode switching indication to a third communication apparatus, wherein the third communication apparatus is comprised in the group of communication apparatuses. Liang invention teaches a method of resource allocation, resource release and transmitting of information related to the resource to a group member terminal. Liang teaches in figures 3-7 and associated portion of the specification of mode switching to UE3 communications apparatus, where the UE3 is comprised in the group of UE1, UE2 and U3. This includes RRC message related to idle and inactive state modes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the teaches of Ryoo in view of Li by being able to sending signaling messages to group of member terminals as shown by Liang in order to reduce processing time on resources allocations and release to a group of terminals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment with respect to claims 1, 3-7 and 9-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant mentions Ryoo fails to teach the amended "Physical Layer Signal" limitation. Applicant argues, “When Ryoo describes the terminal (first communication apparatus) sending a request to switch modes, it explicitly utilizes Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, which is Layer 3, not a physical layer signal. Ryoo states at paragraph [0179]: "the terminal 110 may transmit an RRC state transition report message (e.g., RRC state transition report) to the base station 120..." (Ryoo at [0179], emphasis added). An RRC message is a higher-layer protocol message, distinct from a physical layer signal (such as a Scheduling Request, Sounding Reference Signal, or Preamble) as recited in the dependent claims and now the independent claims. The use of a physical layer signal allows for lower latency and reduced overhead compared to the RRC messaging taught by Ryoo. Because Ryoo relies on RRC messaging for UE-initiated requests, it fails to teach "sending... a first signal... wherein the first signal is a physical layer signal."
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the rationale provided by Applicant for the following reason(s) set forth below. Ryoo teaches in paragraph 0070, 0072, and 0121-0125 teaches of control and paging signaling which in the art are physical layer signaling based on attributes/bits associated with physical layer. A paging signal is considered a part of the physical layer signaling specifically in LTE/4G and 5G NR system, as it is carried over the air interface through defined physical channels and physical signals, rather than just higher-level logical messages. In general, paging a physical layer signaling include PCH (Paging channel), which is mapped to the PDSCH (Physical Downlink Shared Channel) or in conjunction to PDCCH (Physical Downlink Control Channel) to notify the UE of the paging occasion. The distinction from upper layers is while the content of the message is RRC (Radio Resource Control layer 3), the mechanism by which it is delivered (timing, frequency resource, encoding) is strictly handled by the physical layer. Thus, clearly establishing the first signal as amended and claimed is indeed a physical layer signal.
Applicant also argues that Ryoo fails to teach the “correspondence” limitation, “there is a pre-defined or configured correspondence between the mode and the service type of the first communication apparatus. Applicant asserts the Ryoo citations provided in the Office Action teaches a correspondence between service type and time curation. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant to Ryoo figures 6-7 and paragraphs 0105-0108, 0110-0114 in addition to cited paragraph 0185. While paragraph 0185 mentions about the correspondence between each service and timers for switching between the RRC states, paragraph 0105-0108 and 0110-0114 illustrates, that when an event occurs (new traffic corresponding to network specific UE context information) and the terminal is in the RRC inactive state, a transition may be made from the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state. Also note under BRI interpretation, RRC inactivity mode may be considered an energy saving mode and when the RRC mode transitions to RRC connected state based on a new traffic corresponding to network specific UE, this also clearly reads on configured correspondence between the mode and service type. Thus, Ryoo clearly teaches that a configured correspondence between the mode (RRC states) and a service type ( for the specific UE context information) as claimed.
Applicant further argues that Li and Liang does not cure deficiencies of Ryoo. Applicant asserts that Li does not teach the claimed “correspondence between the mode and a service type” in context of RRC states (idle/inactive/connected) as applied to Ryoo. Li is concerned with multiple access schemes (OMA vs. NOMA), not the power saving RRC state framework of Ryoo. However, Examiner again respectfully disagrees for several reasons. One reason is that Ryoo establishes the ”correspondence between the mode and a service type”, see Ryoo figures 6-7 and paragraphs 0105-0108, 0110-0114 illustrates, that when an event occurs (new traffic corresponding to network specific UE context information) and the terminal is in the RRC inactive state, a transition may be made from the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state. This clearly establishes that a configured correspondence between the mode (RRC states) and a service type ( for the specific UE context information, ); also see paragraph 0185 activity timer applicable for each service; table may include information regarding an inactivity timer for switch from RRC active state to RRC inactive state; Additionally note under BRI interpretation, RRC inactivity mode may be considered an energy saving mode and when the RRC mode transitions to RRC connected state based on a new traffic corresponding to network specific UE, this also reads on configured correspondence between the mode and service type. Another reason is that there is a nexus between RRC states and OMA vs. NOMA scheme of Li. See Li paragraph 0002 where Li clearly states switching between OMA and NOMA can be requested by a UE when the UE is transferring from an RRC inactive state (i.e. power savings state) to an RRC connected state. Thus, further establishing based on the Graham v. Deere analysis under the 35 USC 103 statute that combination of Ryoo in view of Li and Ryoo in view of Li/Liang teaches all the limitations claimed. With respect to the argument that Li does not teach sending a physical layer signal to request the switch in a way that remedies Ryoo. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Ryoo teaches in paragraph 0070, 0072, and 0121-0125 of control and paging signaling which in the art are physical layer signaling based on attributes/bits associated with physical layer. A paging signal is considered a part of the physical layer signaling specifically in LTE/4G and 5G NR system, as it is carried over the air interface through defined physical channels and physical signals, rather than just higher-level logical messages. In general, paging a physical layer signaling include PCH (Paging channel), which is mapped to the PDSCH (Physical Downlink Shared Channel) or in conjunction to PDCCH (Physical Downlink Control Channel) to notify the UE of the paging occasion. The distinction from upper layers is while the content of the message is RRC (Radio Resource Control layer 3), the mechanism by which it is delivered (timing, frequency resource, encoding) is strictly handled by the physical layer. Thus, clearly establishing the first signal as amended and claimed is indeed a physical layer signal. Li further discloses in 0172-0178 in addition to the cited passages in the rejection of UE initiating grant-free uplink transmission in the RRC states further establishing obviousness combination to be reasonable under the factual inquires of Graham v Deere analysis under 35 USC 103 statute.
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 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 CHIRAG SHAH whose telephone number is 571-272-3144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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.
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.
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477