DETAILED ACTION
Response filed on 12/3/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 status
Claims 9 and 24 are canceled.
Claims 3-4, 6, 10, 13-14, 18-19, 21, 25, 28, 31, and 33-34 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 15-17, 20, 22-23, 26-27, 29-30, and 32 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 12, 17, 20, 22-23, 27, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurumoorthy et al. (US 2019/0254104 A1), hereinafter “Gurumoorthy” in view of Martinez Tarradell et al.( US 2017/0245213 A1), hereinafter “Tarradell”.
Claims 1, 16, 30, and 32:
Regarding claim 1, Gurumoorthy teaches, a wireless communication method for use in a wireless terminal (Gurumoorthy: ([Abstract] “This disclosure relates to performing implicit radio resource control state transitions in a cellular communication system.”), the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, a set of time values comprising a first time value (A data inactivity timer length and a target RRC state for implicit RRC transitions may be determined. A data inactivity timer having the determined data inactivity timer length may be initiated. It may be determined that the data inactivity timer has expired. The wireless device may transition to the target RRC state based at least in part on determining that the data inactivity timer has expired”).
Gurumoorthy however fails to teach Tracking Area Update timer, and thus fails to teach the claim, a second time value: and switching from a first state to a second state according to at least one of the time values: wherein a second timer configured with the second time value is started, wherein switching from the first state to the second state comprises: switching to the second state each time of an expiry of the second timer, or switching to the second state each time of an expiry of the second timer and monitoring a physical downlink control channel after the second timer expires, wherein the second timer is a tracking area update timer.
Tarradell in the same field of endeavor teaches a second time value (TAU update timer, as stated in Clm.42, “the processing circuitry is configured to: after entry into the PSM, in response to expiry of at least one of a Tracking Area Update (TAU) timer, unreachable timer, power saving timer or downlink check timer, exit the PSM.”; and
switching from a first state (Power save mode, as described in Clm.42,) to a second state (state after exiting the PSM) according to at least one of the time values (data inactivity timer of Gurumoorthy (first timer) and Tracking Area Update (TAU) timer (second timer) discussed above):
wherein a second timer configured with the second time value is started, wherein switching from the first state to the second state comprises: switching to the second state each time of an expiry of the second timer (discussed above; the second timer start is implied based on disclosure of its expiry and subsequent action as discussed above in reference to claim 42), or
switching to the second state each time of an expiry of the second timer and monitoring a physical downlink control channel after the second timer expires,
wherein the second timer is a tracking area update timer (Discussed above in relation to Clm.42).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Tarradell regarding TAU timer and combine with the disclosure by Gurumoorthy regarding data inactivity timer and come up with the claimed invention motivated by power saving during data inactivity as well was taking care of the update of tracking area which is vital for continuing communication while mobile location area changes and network be aware of the change.
Claim 16 is for method in a network device, complimentary to the method of claim 1. Claim elements are discussed above in claim 1. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 30 for a terminal device performing method of claim 1. Existence of a processor in a device is implied. Claim is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 32 is for a network node performing method complimentary to method of claim 1. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 17:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Gurumoorthy and Tartadell teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the first state is one of an active state (implied by disclosure in Fig.6, step 620 “After every data activity (UL or DL) UE restarts the data inactivity timer; until timer T2 is started, the device is in active state.) or an inactive state and the second state is another one of the active state or the inactive state (Fig.6, step 622 is the inactive sate), wherein the active state is a radio resource control connected state or a state of performing communications according to a scheduling (as per discussion above, UL or DL data activity happens in the active state).
Though Gurumoorthy does not call the inactive state as sleep state or standby state, and not expressly disclosing, wherein the inactive state is a sleep state or a standby state, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention from the description of inactive state, “In the inactive state, the UE does not transmit or receive any information from the wireless network node.” (specification [0121]) and implication from disclosures in Gurumoorthy Fig.6 that transition to inactive sate happens after a data activity and inactive timer expiry, implying there is no UL or DL data transmission or reception by the UE from the network node.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to designate an inactive state as a sleep or standby state as per the claim, “such a state may improve the power saving capability of a wireless device, e.g., in comparison to operating in a RRC connected state”, as disclosed by Gurumoorthy in [0074].
Claim 17 is for method by a network node with functions complimentary to method of claim 2. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 2.
Claims 5 and 20:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein a first timer configured with a first time value in the at least one time value is started (Gurumoorthy: Fig.6, Timer T2), and wherein switching from the first state to the second state according to at least one time value comprises:
switching to the second state when the first timer expires, wherein the first timer is a power saving mode timer (Timer T2 as discussed above is a data inactivity timer and its purpose is power saving as discussed above in claim 2) or an on-duration timer for discontinuous reception.
Claim 20 is for method by a network node with functions complimentary to method of claim 5. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 5.
Claims 7 and 22:
Regarding claim 7, combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein switching from the first state to the second state according to at least one time value comprises: receiving a first number of DL channels, and
switching to the second state a time offset after receiving the last DL channel, wherein the
time offset is one of the at least one time value (implied by disclosure in step 620, “After every data activity (UL or DL) UE restarts the data inactivity timer. If the timer expires, UE transitions to RRC_INACTIVE”; and timer T2 may be considered the time offset)).
Claim 22 is for method by a network node with functions complimentary to method of claim 7. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 23:
Regarding claim 8, combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein switching from the first state to the second state according to at least one time value comprises:
transmitting a second number of UL channels, and switching to the second state a time offset after transmitting the last UL channel, wherein the time offset is one of the at least one time value (as per discussion above in claim 7, the switching applies to both UL and DL transmission).
Claim 23 is for method by a network node with functions complimentary to method of claim 8. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 8.
Claims 12 and 27:
Regarding claim 12, combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising:
receiving, from a wireless network node, indication information, wherein switching from the first state to the second state according to at least one time value comprises at least one of:
performing, with the wireless network node, a UL synchronization within a fifth time value in the at least one time value after receiving the indication information, or
performing, with the wireless network node, a UL transmission a fifth time value in the at least one time value after receiving the indication information, wherein the UL synchronization is at least one of: a global navigation satellite system reception, a tracking area calculation, or a frequency offset calculation, wherein the fifth time value is an additional offset configured by a wireless network node (implied by the disclosure, “if desired, the wireless device and/or the cellular base station may avoid scheduling any uplink or downlink activity for a certain amount of time leading up to expiration of the data inactivity timer used to determine when an implicit RRC state transition occurs. The duration of such a restriction may be selected as desired, e.g., to reduce the likelihood of possible synchronization issues that could occur from such data activity if the data inactivity timer at the wireless device and the data inactivity timer at the cellular base station are slightly offset.” ([0086])).
Claim 27 is for method by a network node with functions complimentary to method of claim 12. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 12.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (CN 110178335 A), hereinafter “Jin”.
Claims 11 and 26:
Regarding claim 11, combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Gurumoorthy however fails to teach the claim, wherein a third timer is configured with a third time value in the at least one time value, wherein the third timer is triggered by a start of at least one hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, process, wherein switching from the first state to the second state according to at least one time value comprises at least one of:
switching to the second state after finishing the at least one HARQ process, or monitoring a physical downlink control channel after the third timer expires.
In the same field of endeavor Jin teaches the claim regarding a third timer related to HARQ process related to RRC state switching. The teaching of claim by Jin is implied by the disclosures in Jin in the following paragraph:
“if receiving the scheduling information of the new packet in the 2j-05 (or 2j-10) of the starting lasting time on the PDCCH, the UE starting DRX inactivity timer at the 2j-15. For the DRX inactivity timer, the UE maintains the active state. That is, the UE continues monitoring PDCCH. UE also starts the HARQ RTT timer at 2j-20. applying a HARQ RTT timer to prevent the UE unnecessarily the HARQ round trip time (Round Trip Time, RTT) is monitoring the PDCCH, and during the operation time of the timer, the UE does not need to perform PDCCH monitoring. However, when the PRXHS-SICH inactivity timer and HARQ RTT timer operated at the same time, UE inactivity timer continue to PDCCH monitoring based on DRX. if a HARQ RTT timer expires, the DRX retransmission timer is started at 2j-25. when the DRX retransmission timer operation, the UE should perform PDCCH monitoring. Generally, during the retransmission timer operation time in DRX, (2j-30) receiving scheduling information for HARQ retransmission. if receiving the scheduling information, the UE instantly suspending the DRX retransmission timer, and restarting the HARQ RTT timer. the operation continues until (at 2j-35) a packet is successfully received”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Jin with that of combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell motivated by making sure the success of the last transmission by state switching only after last transmission is successful.
Claim 26 is for method by a network node with functions complimentary to method of claim 11. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 11.
Claims 15 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Palat et al. (CN 104081855 A), hereinafter “Palat”.
Claims 15 and 29:
Regarding claim 15, Gurumoorthy teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 (discussed above).
combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell however fails to teach, but in the same field of endeavor Palat teaches, transmitting, to a wireless network node, position information of the wireless terminal (Palat: [0045] However, various embodiments of the invention suggests using at least a portion of one or more previous RRC connection of the mobile terminal specific radio resource utilization information to improve the subsequent RRC between the mobile terminal and a wireless communication network connection associated with a particular RRM parameter setting. estimating, mobile terminal specific radio resource utilization information for one or more previous RRC connection may be used as subsequent establishing of RRC connection or the foundation of radio resource utilization. for example, position in the base station or RRM entity coupled thereto can be equipped with a mobile terminal specific RRM parameter based on the estimation, such as a sleep timer and/or DRX configuration”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Palat with that of combination of Gurumoorthy and Tarradell motivated by use of previous RRC connection of the mobile terminal specific radio resource utilization information to improve the subsequent RRC between the mobile terminal and a wireless communication network connection associated with a particular RRM parameter setting, as disclosed above.
Claim 29 is for method by a network node with functions complimentary to method of claim 15. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights