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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-12 and 19-20, in the reply filed on 12-30-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that in view of the amendment now the group’s claims parallel each other. This is not found persuasive because groups I and II are still different devices, performing different methods. The network device does not need to make the steps of the terminal device and vice versa. For example, the network device does not need to make the determination about satisfying the condition. Thereby, each group is a different device with a different scope.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 4-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification gives multiple schemes and conflicting information about the logic ID. Please indicate what is a logic ID. For examination purposes any identifier, bit, etc. can be a logic ID. The rest of the claims they include the deficiency or share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The specification gives multiple schemes and conflicting information about the logic ID, thereby, it is unclear the scope of the limitation. Please clarify what is a logic ID. For examination purposes any identifier, bit, etc. can be a logic ID. Please note that the logic ID is given as conditional limitations. The rest of the claims they include the deficiency or share the deficiency by virtue of dependency. Also: [Ex Parte Schulhauser] Schulhauser clarified that no patentable weight is given to limitations in claims that rely on a condition precedent that is not required to be performed. Claim 2, require the selection of one reception-condition configuration information, if the logic ID is the selected condition in claim 2, then only claim 4 would be true; if the bit field is selected then only claim 5 condition would be true and if the geographic coordinate range is selected then only claim 8 would be true. How the not selected information have support in the dependent claims?
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite: “wherein the reception-condition configuration information comprises the logic ID/bit field configuration information, and accordingly”. It is unclear the scope of “and accordingly”. Please clarify.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites “before determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, the method further comprises: determining whether to receive the updated system broadcast message based on the reception-condition configuration information”. Since the determination whether to receive the updated system broadcast message is based on the determination whether the reception-condition configuration information is satisfied or not. It is unclear how can the step can be before. Please explain. The rest of the claims they include the deficiency or share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li 20200296658.
As to claim 1, Li discloses a method for system broadcast message update (see par. 0003, 0006), applied to a terminal device and comprising:
receiving reception-condition configuration information from a network device via a system broadcast message or dedicated signaling [step 401, 701: a paging message is received on a first BWP, the paging message including indication information indicating a system information modification] (see par. 0099);
determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in reception-condition configuration information, wherein the reception-condition configuration information is used [intended use] for the terminal device to determine whether to receive a corresponding updated system broadcast message [step 703: the terminal equipment determines that there exists transmission of system information on an active BWP or there exists no transmission of system information on an active BWP according to the indication information, or determines to receive a paging message or not to receive a paging message on an active BWP according to the indication information] (see par. 0150); and
receiving the corresponding updated system broadcast message when the terminal device determines that the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information [step 403, 705: the terminal equipment receives on an active BWP, updated system information transmitted by the network device. The updated system information may be transmitted via radio resource control signaling] (see par. 0153).
As to claims 2 and 20, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reception-condition configuration information comprises at least one of:
logic identity (ID) configuration information, wherein the logic ID configuration information comprises at least one logic ID;
bit field configuration information, wherein the bit field configuration information has at least one bit [wherein the indication information may be a bitmap, a bit length of the bitmap being equal to the number of BWPs configured for the terminal equipment by the network side, and each bit of the bitmap being used to indicate whether there exists transmission of system information in each BWP; and wherein a bit value 1 may be used to indicate that there exists transmission of system information, and a bit value 0 may be used to indicate that there exists no transmission of system information] (see par. 0135); or
geographic coordinate range configuration information.
As to claim 3, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information comprises:
receiving a portion of an updated system broadcast message; and
determining, according to the received portion of the system broadcast message, whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, or
wherein determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information comprises:
determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, when the terminal device detects, according to downlink control information (DCI) or a paging message sent by a network device, that a system broadcast message and/or warning information is updated [step 703] (see par. 0010, 0150).
As to claim 19, Li discloses terminal device [1200], comprising: a memory [1202] configured to store computer-executable instructions; and a processor [1201] configured to execute the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory to cause the terminal device to: [please see fig. 12; par. 0238; and claim 1].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
As to claim 3, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information comprises:
receiving a “portion” of an updated system broadcast message; and
determining, according to the received portion of the system broadcast message, whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information [step 704: the terminal equipment stops receiving a paging message transmitted by the network device (does not receive a paging message), when it is determined that there exists no transmission of system information or a paging message is not received on the active BWP] (see par. 0151). Since Li discloses stop receiving paging message by determination in step 704, it would be obvious that it received just a portion of the message. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Li is receiving a portion of an updated system broadcast message and stop receiving for the simple purpose of saving power and resources.
As to claims 4, Li discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the reception-condition configuration information comprises the bit/bitmap configuration information, and accordingly, determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information comprises:
obtaining a bit/bitmap of the terminal device [wherein the indication information may be a bitmap, a bit length of the bitmap] (see par. 0135);
determining that the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, when the bit/bitmap in the bit/bitmap configuration information comprises the bitmap or bit length of the terminal device [each bit of the bitmap being used to indicate whether there exists transmission of system information in each BWP] (see par. 0135-0136); and
determining that the terminal device does not meet the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, when the bit in the bitmap configuration information does not comprise the bitmap or bit length of the terminal device [wherein the indication information may be a bitmap, a bit length of the bitmap being equal to the number of BWPs configured for the terminal equipment by the network side, and each bit of the bitmap being used to indicate whether there exists transmission of system information in each BWP; and wherein a bit value 1 may be used to indicate that there exists transmission of system information, and a bit value 0 may be used to indicate that there exists no transmission of system information] (see par. 0135-0136). As indicated in the 112 rejection the scope of a logic ID is unclear; however, claim 7 recite that one bit-field corresponds to one logic ID; thereby, appears that Li’s bit corresponds to one logic ID. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings to let know the devices when the configuration information applies to then; thereby, allowing conditional configuration.
As to claims 5-7, Li discloses the The method of claim 2, wherein the reception-condition configuration information comprises the bit field configuration information, and accordingly, determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information comprises:
obtaining a bit/bitmap/length of the terminal device [wherein the indication information may be a bitmap, a bit length of the bitmap] (see par. 0135);
determining a bit field corresponding to the terminal device according to the length/position/index of the terminal device and a mapping between bit-fields and bitmaps [each bit of the bitmap being used to indicate whether there exists transmission of system information in each BWP] (see par. 0135-0136;
determining that the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, when a value of the bit field corresponding to the terminal device falls within a predefined value range device [each bit of the bitmap being used to indicate whether there exists transmission of system information in each BWP; and wherein a bit value 1 may be used to indicate that there exists transmission of system information] (see par. 0135-0136); and
determining that the terminal device does not meet the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, when the value of the bit field corresponding to the terminal device does not fall within the predefined value range [wherein the indication information may be a bitmap, a bit length of the bitmap being equal to the number of BWPs configured for the terminal equipment by the network side, and each bit of the bitmap being used to indicate whether there exists transmission of system information in each BWP; and wherein a bit value 1 may be used to indicate that there exists transmission of system information, and a bit value 0 may be used to indicate that there exists no transmission of system information] (see par. 0135-0136); determining that the terminal device does not satisfy the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, when determining, according to the logic ID of the terminal device and the mapping between bit-fields and logic IDs, that the terminal device does not have a corresponding bit field (see par. 0135-0136). As indicated in the 112 rejection the scope of a logic ID is unclear; however, claim 7 recite that one bit-field corresponds to one logic ID; thereby, appears that Li’s bit corresponds to one logic ID. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings to let know the devices when the configuration information applies to then; thereby, allowing conditional configuration.
Regarding claim 8, since in claim 2 the bitfield was selected, the present claim fall under limitations that rely on a condition precedent that is not required to be performed. Even, if required, is still the same method disclosed by Li in claim 5, but with a different identifier for the information. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute an identifier by another, since it has been held that substituting elements that bring the same predictable result, involves only routine skill in the art. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings to let know the devices when the configuration information applies to then; thereby, allowing conditional configuration.
Regarding claims 9-11, as indicated in the 112 rejection claim the determination whether to receive the updated system broadcast message based on the determination of satisfying reception-condition configuration information; thereby, it should not be possible the claim. Regarding the determining step of claim 10 is disclosed by Li par. 0135, 0150 and OFFICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN for the determination using capability information is a common and well-known technique [for example, note that Nader does disclose using UECapabilityInformation in par. 0047]. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to make sure that the device is capable of using the information for the simple purpose of compatibility; thereby, functioning correctly.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Nader 20230308850.
As to claims 12, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the updated system broadcast message comprises: receiving updated information, wherein the system broadcast message contains the information. [step 403, 705: the terminal equipment receives on an active BWP, updated system information transmitted by the network device] (see par. 0153). Li fails to disclose the intended use warning information. In an analogous art, Nader discloses wherein the system broadcast message contains the warning information (see abstract). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings to send warning information for the simple purpose of saving lives and property.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647