DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,10, and 12. Claims 8 and 19 have been previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026, have been fully considered and entered. Regarding the independent claims 1, 10 and 12, they are not persuasive.
Main Argument
First, while He may disclose the existence of different types of terminals, this is in no way unique to He. Indeed, it is well known that UE devices may come in a variety of different types. Further, while different types of devices may necessitate different RRC parameters, such different parameters aren't necessarily used to determine a type of the UE. Granting for the sake of argument only that two given UE assistance messages may originate from different UE types, the Office fails to demonstrate that He discloses transmission of a set of parameters as part of the UE assistance message that can act as a fingerprint allowing the UE type to be uniquely determined. It is possible, in other words, for two different types of UEs to send otherwise identical UE assistance messages if the particular parameters they prefer are coincidentally identical. In such a case, it would be impossible to uniquely determine a UE type from the UE assistance message. This is not a problem for the disclosure of He, because He does not disclose use of the UE assistance message to determine a UE type, and then use the determined UE type to determine the RRC parameters.
Second, as mentioned immediately above, He does not teach use of the UE assistance message to first ascertain the UE type and use such type in the subsequent selection of RRC parameters. In fact, in some instances the suggested parameters may be disregarded entirely by the base station: "In some examples, the radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message may configure one or more RRC parameters of the UE 602 with values that are different from the requested parameter values in the UE assistance information message 616." He, [0133]. As He makes clear, the values requested in the UE assistance information message are simply preferences, but can otherwise be overridden by the base station. This would not be understood by a person skilled in the art to be the same as providing a first value that corresponds to the terminal type, the terminal type determined from the first feature information, simply because He never discloses the terminal type as actually being determined from the UE assistance message. That preferred values from the UE assistance message may be disregarded only serves to further highlight the fact that the UE assistance message is also not used to ascertain a terminal type.
Reply: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification, the factors that determine a terminal’s type include at least one of the following: a service type, mobility, a transmission latency requirement, a channel environment, a reliability requirement, a coverage requirement, and a communication scenario (e.g. paragraph [0021] from the specification). In other words, from the network device’s perspective, the communication requirements of the terminal device is what determines the terminal’s type. These requirements are expressed as RRC parameter values preferred by the terminal for optimal operation.
He discloses the ability for the UE to request the RRC parameter values through the transmission of a UE assistance information message (He [0133]-[0135] and [0203]; Fig. 6). The RRC parameters indicate the capability and requirements of the system, which inherently describes the type of terminal the RRC parameters are associated with. Even though the values requested in the UE assistance message are considered preferences and may be overridden by the base station, they are still preferences which detail the capabilities and requirements of the system and inherently detail the type of terminal they correspond to. Although the preferences may be overridden, this does not negate the fact that the requested values inherently describe the preferences, capabilities, and requirements of the system, and therefore the type of the terminal. Furthermore, He can be viewed to disclose at least two main types of UEs, UEs with reduced capabilities and premium smartphones, each having unique communication requirements (He [0203] “For example, these new categories of parameters may improve the performance of different types of UEs (e.g., UEs with reduced capabilities, premium smartphones, etc.) by allowing each UE to change parameters associated with its processing capabilities and/or power saving objectives.”). Reduced capability UEs have more stringent power requirements as compared to premium smartphones (He [0102] “Some types of UEs in a network may have reduced capabilities (also referred to as reduced capability (RedCap) UEs)… UEs with reduced capabilities (e.g., smartwatches) typically generate more traffic than NB-IoT devices but less traffic than eMBB smartphones. Moreover, UEs with reduced capabilities are typically more sensitive to power consumption than eMBB smartphones.” and [0104] “UEs with reduced capabilities may benefit from the use of UE assistance information because these types of UEs are sensitive to power consumption and many of the radio capabilities of these types of UEs are expected to be reduced…”). Since each terminal type have different communication requirements, the UE assistance information contains information which uniquely identifies the terminal type.
Therefore, a person having ordinary level of skill in the art, considering the teachings of VENUGOPAL in view of the teaching of He, would find it obvious that the UE assistance information contains information which indicates the terminal type. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Second Argument
Consequently, Venugopal in view fails to disclose that "the first value corresponds to the terminal type, the terminal type determined from the first feature information", as recited in independent claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 12 are similarly amended.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 10, and 12 are allowable over the combination of Venugopal in view of He.
Reply: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least paragraphs [0218], [0120], [0118-0123], [0178], [0184], [0219-0221], and [element 524 of Fig. 5] of Venugopal teach that a terminal may determine at least one operational mode associated with the UE based on characteristics and/or capabilities of the UE to include the type of the UE. Because the terminal is able to determine the type of the UE, it is implied that the RRC parameter values sent to the UE would indicate the type of the terminal in order to facilitate communication between the terminal and UE. It is well known in the art that RRC parameters indicate the capabilities and behavior of a device, inherently indicating the type of terminal the RRC parameters correspond to for communication.
Therefore, a person having ordinary level of skill in the art, considering the teachings of VENUGOPAL in combination with He, would find it obvious that “the first value corresponds to the terminal type, the terminal type determined from the first feature information”. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENUGOPAL et al. (US 20210194658 A1) hereinafter VENUGOPAL. in view of HE et al. (US 20220022057 A1) hereinafter HE.
Regarding claim 1,
VENUGOPAL teaches a communication method (Figs. 5-7), comprising:
determining, by a terminal device, a first value candidate set (UE determining a set of RRC parameters [0133], [0184], and [0221]),
wherein the first value candidate set corresponds to a terminal type of the terminal device (the set of RRC parameters corresponding to at least one operational mode [0184] and [0221]),
and the first value candidate set comprises a value candidate set of a radio resource control (RRC) parameter corresponding to the terminal type (set and/or subset of RRC parameters corresponding to at least one operational mode [0184] and [0221]);
receiving, by the terminal device, a first value from the network device, wherein the first value comprises a group of RRC parameter values in the first value candidate set (receiving values of each of the set of the RRC parameters from the base station [0118]-[0123], [0178], [0184], and [0219]-[0221]; element 524 of Fig. 5);
the first value corresponds to the terminal type, the terminal type determined from the first feature information (at least [0120], [0118]-[0123], [0178], [0184], and [0219]-[0221]; [element 524 of Fig. 5] it is well known in the art that RRC parameters directly indicate the behavior and capability of a device, inherently indicating the type of terminal associated with the RRC parameters.);
and performing, by the terminal device, communication based on the first value (the UE transmitting group-based report based on using the received values which determine an operational mode [0123], [0171], and [0202]-[0203]).
VENUGOPAL does not explicitly teach sending, by the terminal device, first feature information to the network device, wherein the first feature information indicates the terminal type.
HE teaches sending, by the terminal device, first feature information to the network device, wherein the first feature information indicates the terminal type (sending UE assistance information message indicating UE type [0133] and [0203]; element 616 of Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of HE to the teachings of VENUGOPAL. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (HE [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 2,
VENUGOPAL and He teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches a type of the RRC parameter corresponding to the terminal type comprises one or more of a data transmission configuration parameter, a channel state information (CSI) measurement and feedback configuration parameter (RRC IE configuring the UE for CSI reporting [0119]),
an initial access configuration parameter, a mobility configuration parameter, a power control configuration parameter, or a beam management configuration parameter (RRC parameter for the number of TCI states [0123], [0179], [0220], and [0242]).
Regarding claim 5,
VENUGOPAL and He teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches the value candidate set of the RRC parameter indicates a configuration manner of the RRC parameter, and wherein the configuration manner comprises one of: a configuration parameter field, and the configuration parameter field comprises a configuration parameter of the configuration manner; or a configuration parameter (set and/or subset of RRC parameters [0184] and [0221]).
Regarding claim 6,
VENUGOPAL and He teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches the determining, by a terminal device, the first value candidate set comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, the first value candidate set from the network device (RRC parameter set used for lookup being signaled to the UE by the base station [0133]).
Regarding claim 7,
VENUGOPAL and He teach all the features of claim 6, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches the value candidate set of the RRC parameter corresponding to the terminal type (set and/or subset of RRC parameters corresponding to at least one operational mode [0184] and [0221]).
VENUGOPAL does not explicitly teach before the receiving, by the terminal device, the first value candidate set from the network device: sending, by the terminal device, first request information to the network device, wherein the first request information requests the value candidate set.
HE teaches before the receiving, by the terminal device, the first value candidate set from the network device (before receiving RRC reconfiguration message with the RRC parameters [0133]; Fig. 6);
sending, by the terminal device, first request information to the network device, wherein the first request information requests the value candidate set (sending UE assistance information message requesting RRC parameter values [0133]; element 616 of Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of HE to the teachings of VENUGOPAL. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (HE [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 9,
VENUGOPAL and He teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches the terminal type is determined based on one or more of a service type, mobility, a transmission latency requirement, a channel environment, a reliability requirement, a coverage requirement, or a communication scenario (operational mode based on use case [0122]).
Regarding claim 10,
VENUGOPAL teaches a communication method (Figs. 5-7), comprising:
receiving, by the terminal device, first downlink control information (DCI) from a network device (receiving set of values from the base station via DCI [0118]-[0120], [0178], [0184], and [0219]-[0221]; element 524 of Fig. 5),
wherein the first DCI comprises values of a plurality of DCI parameters (the DCI indication comprising a set of values [0118]-[0123]),
a DCI parameter from the plurality of DCI parameters comprised in the first DCI corresponds to the terminal type of the terminal device (at least one value from the set of values corresponding to at least one operational mode [0118]-[0123] and [0184]),
a candidate set of the value of the DCI parameter corresponds to the terminal type ( [0118]-[0123] and [0184),
and the candidate set comprises at least one value of the DCI parameter corresponding to the terminal type (set of values including at least one value indicating operational mode [0118]-[0123] and [0184);
wherein the at least one value corresponds to the terminal type, the terminal type determined from the first feature information (at least [0120], [0118]-[0123], [0178], [0184], and [0219]-[0221]; [element 524 of Fig. 5] it is well known in the art that RRC parameters directly indicate the behavior and capability of a device, inherently indicating the type of terminal associated with the RRC parameters);
and performing, by the terminal device, communication based on the first DCI (the UE transmitting group-based report based on using the received values which determine an operational mode [0123], [0171], and [0202]-[0203]).
VENUGOPAL does not explicitly teach sending, by the terminal device, first feature information to the network device, wherein the first feature information indicates the terminal type.
HE teaches sending, by the terminal device, first feature information to the network device, wherein the first feature information indicates the terminal type (sending UE assistance information message indicating UE type [0133] and [0203]; element 616 of Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of HE to the teachings of VENUGOPAL. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (HE [0006]-[0007]).
Claims [12-13, 16-18, and 20] “terminal device” (UE apparatus [0238]-[0258]; Fig. 8) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1-2, 5-7, and 9] “communication method”, respectively.
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENUGOPAL and He in further view of Zhou et al. (US 20190208436 A1) hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 3,
VENUGOPAL and He teaches all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches wherein at least one of: the terminal type is an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) device (UE operating in eMBB [0019]),
a type of an RRC parameter corresponding to the eMBB device comprises the channel state information (CSI) measurement and feedback configuration parameter (RRC IE configuring the UE for CSI reporting [0119]);
and the beam management configuration parameter (RRC parameter for the number of TCI states [0123], [0179], [0220], and [0242]);
the terminal type is an ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) device, a type of an RRC parameter corresponding to the URLLC device comprises the data transmission configuration parameter, the CSI measurement and feedback configuration parameter, and the beam management configuration parameter; the terminal type is an Internet of Things (IoT) device, a type of an RRC parameter corresponding to the IoT comprises the data transmission configuration parameter, the initial access configuration parameter, and the mobility configuration parameter; or the terminal type is customer premises equipment (CPE), a type of an RRC parameter corresponding to the CPE comprises the data transmission configuration parameter and the CSI measurement and feedback configuration parameter.
VENUGOPAL and He do not explicitly teach the RRC parameter comprising the data transmission configuration parameter, the initial access configuration parameter, the mobility configuration parameter, and the power control configuration parameter.
Zhou teaches the RRC parameter comprising the data transmission configuration parameter (configuration parameters configuring numerology [0168] and [0297]) , the initial access configuration parameter (configuration parameters for cell activation [0262]-[0263]),
the mobility configuration parameter (configuration parameters configuring mobility [0262]-[0263]),
and the power control configuration parameter (configuration parameters controlling power consumption [0262]-[0263]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of VENUGOPAL and He. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would save power (Zhou [0262]).
Regarding claim 4,
VENUGOPAL and He and Zhou teaches all the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches at least one of: the terminal type is the eMBB device, a value candidate set of a CSI reporting time domain configuration parameter in the CSI measurement and feedback configuration parameter is periodic reporting, aperiodic reporting, and semi-persistent reporting (RRC IE configuring the UE for CSI reporting [0110] and [0119]).
VENUGOPAL and He do not explicitly teach a value candidate set of a subcarrier spacing configuration parameter in the data transmission configuration parameter is 15 kHz, 30 kHz, 120 kHz, and 240 kHz, and a value candidate set of a beam failure recovery timing parameter in the beam management configuration parameter is 10 ms, 20 ms, 40 ms, 60 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 150 ms, and 200 ms;
Zhou teaches a value candidate set of a subcarrier spacing configuration parameter in the data transmission configuration parameter is 15 kHz, 30 kHz, 120 kHz, and 240 kHz (configured SCS from 15 upto 480 KHz [0168] and [0308]),
and a value candidate set of a beam failure recovery timing parameter in the beam management configuration parameter is 10 ms, 20 ms, 40 ms, 60 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 150 ms, and 200 ms (configuration parameter for BFR timer value comprising 10 ms, 20 ms, 40 ms, 60 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 150 ms, and 200 ms [0391]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of VENUGOPAL. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance beam failure recovery (Zhou [0386]).
Claims [14 and 15] “terminal device” (UE apparatus [0238]-[0258]; Fig. 8) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [3 and 4] “communication method”, respectively.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENUGOPAL and He, and in view of Cheng et al. (US 20190394758 A1) hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 11,
VENUGOPAL and He teach all the features of claim 10, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL and He do not explicitly teach determining, by the terminal device, a first DCI format, wherein the first DCI format corresponds to the terminal type; and receiving, by the terminal device, the first DCI from the network device based on the first DCI format.
Cheng teaches determining, by the terminal device, a first DCI format, wherein the first DCI format corresponds to the terminal type (UE determining DCI format corresponding to a service type [0081]); and receiving, by the terminal device, the first DCI from the network device based on the first DCI format (UE receiving DCI from base station based on the DCI format [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Cheng to the teachings of VENUGOPAL and He. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it handles multiple service types while keeping low overhead (Cheng [0002]-[0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights