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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5-24-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Some 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment, while other stands. Please see below for further details.
As to section i, applicant submits: “As an initial matter, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a paging message, a system broadcast message, and dedicated signaling are distinct concepts in 3GPP NR systems, having different characteristics in terms of transmission channel, intended recipient, and RRC connection requirements. The "system information" mentioned in Li refers to information content, not to the signaling mechanism by which the presently claimed reception-condition configuration information is received. Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Office's mapping is improper because the claim terms must be interpreted in light of the specification and as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art; the broadest reasonable interpretation does not permit treating distinct signaling mechanisms as interchangeable where the claim expressly recites "system broadcast message or dedicated signaling." See MPEP § 2111. Li's paging message therefore cannot qualify as either a system broadcast message or dedicated signaling.”; the examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification and/or characteristic of what a person having ordinary skill in the art may understand are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If a system message is broadcasted as disclosed by Li in par. 0003, it can be properly equated to system broadcast message.
As to section ii, applicant submits: “Li fails to disclose "determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in reception-condition configuration information, wherein the reception-condition configuration information is used by the terminal device to determine whether to receive a corresponding system broadcast message" as presently claimed.”; because: “Li's indication information cannot properly be equated with the claimed reception-condition configuration information. Li does not disclose that the indication information in step 702 is transmitted via a system broadcast message or dedicated signaling, as required by the amended claims.”; the examiner’s position as indicated in section I, Li's indication information can properly be equated with the claimed reception-condition configuration information since a paging message is generally considered a type of system message because it is generated, transmitted, and delivered through a dedicated communication system.
Applicant submits: “claim 1 requires that the reception-condition configuration information be used by the terminal device to determine whether to receive a corresponding system broadcast message. By contrast, Li's indication information indicates whether there is transmission of system information on a BWP or whether the terminal equipment receives a paging message on a BWP. This is materially different from using reception-condition configuration information to determine whether to receive a corresponding system broadcast message.”; the examiner’s point first, that the argument is about a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. And the argument, although alleges that it is materially different, fails to articulate or present any material difference.
For section iii, as previously indicated there is no articulated or presented difference in the system broadcast message. Even arguendo that the message is different it would be within the knowledge of one of the ordinary skills in the art to repeat the teaching in another message since it is going to bring the same predicable result of communicating the desired information.
Also, applicant submits: “even if Li's "indication information" were treated as the claimed reception-condition configuration information, Li would still need to disclose receiving a corresponding system broadcast message when the terminal device determines that it satisfies a condition in that indication information. Li does not disclose such a relationship. Li provides no link between indication information of step 401 and the receiving operation of step 403 in the manner required by the amended claims.”; the examiner points that the argument validates the 112 rejection, the claim recites a plurality of options which makes unclear what are the requirement of the claims. Since the amended claim recites “at least one of:” it should not require the limitation when another alternative is selected. See MPEP 2111.04 II. Regardless, Li discloses receiving a paging message which is a type of corresponding system broadcast message when the terminal device determines that it satisfies a condition in that indication information.
Sections iv and v are directed to additional possible selections which are only true if selected, and as disclosed in the prior paragraph Li discloses receiving or not a paging message which is a type of corresponding system broadcast message when the terminal device determines that it satisfies or not the condition in the indication information. Additionally, wherein Li’s bit value 1 is mapped to indicate that there exists transmission of system information, and a bit value 0 is mapped to indicate that there exists no transmission of system information] (see par. 0135); therefore, reading in the mapping limitation.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3-12 and 19 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. [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. Parent claims require the selection of one reception-condition configuration information, if the logic ID is the selected condition, 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?
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 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] by the terminal device to determine whether to receive a corresponding 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
at least one of:
receiving the corresponding 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); or
dropping receiving the corresponding system broadcast message or dropping receiving a remaining portion of the corresponding system broadcast message, when the terminal device determines that the terminal device does not satisfy the condition in the reception-condition configuration information (see par. 0150);
wherein the reception-condition configuration information comprises at least one of:
terminal identity (ID) configuration information, wherein the terminal ID configuration information comprises at least one terminal ID;
bit field configuration information, wherein the bit field configuration information has at least one bit fields, the bit fields and terminal IDs are in a mapping, and the bit fields are used by the terminal device to determine whether to receive the corresponding system broadcast message [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); 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 a 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 1, wherein the reception-condition configuration information comprises the terminal ID [indication information is used to indicate that the terminal equipment receives a paging message] and/or bit/bitmap configuration information, and accordingly, determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information comprises:
obtaining an ID/bit/bitmap of the terminal device [wherein the indication information may be a bitmap, a bit length of the bitmap] (see par. 0135-0136);
determining that the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information, when the at least one terminal ID/bit/bitmap in the 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 at least one the terminal ID/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). 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 method of claim 1, wherein when the reception-condition configuration information comprises the bit field configuration information, determining whether the terminal device satisfies the condition in the reception-condition configuration information comprises:
obtaining an ID [indication information is used to indicate that the terminal equipment receives a paging message] bit/bitmap/length of the terminal device [wherein the indication information may be a bitmap, a bit length of the bitmap] (see par. 0135-0136);
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). 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 1 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 and OFFICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN obtaining geographic location coordinates is a common and well-known technique. 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 and/or use location, 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 to enable a function 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights