DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/28/2024, 05/08/2025 and 12/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN20210616042.8, filed on 06/02/2021.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 5-13 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Claim 5 recites the limitation "a third communication device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim unless the first and second communication devices are described in the preceding text of the claim.
(2) Claim 5 recites the limitation "a fifth operation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim unless the first, second, third and fourth operation are described in the preceding text of the claim.
(3) Claim 12 recites the limitation "a sixth communication device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim unless the first, second, third, fourth and fifth communication devices are described in the preceding text of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-13, 15-17 and 18-20 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.
(1) Claim 2 recites the limitation "the terminal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the terminal" to ---a terminal--.
(2) Claim 3 recites the limitation "the terminal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the terminal" to ---a terminal--.
(3) Claim 4 recites the limitation "the terminal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the terminal" to ---a terminal--.
(4) Claim 5 recites the limitation "the terminal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the terminal" to ---a terminal--.
(5) Claim 5 recites the limitation "the obtained information" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the obtained information" to ---the obtained first information --.
(6) Claim 12 recites the limitation "the terminal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the terminal" to ---a terminal--.
(7) Claim 15 recites the limitation "the terminal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the terminal" to ---a terminal--.
(8) Claim 16 recites the limitation "the terminal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the terminal" to ---a terminal--.
(9) Claim 17 recites the limitation "the terminal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner suggests correcting the issue by changing "the terminal" to ---a terminal--.
7. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (WO 2020209620) (hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claim 1:
As shown in figures 1-17, Kumar discloses an information processing method, performed by a first communication device and comprising:
performing a first operation (non-access stratum (NAS), par 13, 50, 100, 104-106, 108, claim 2) or a second operation,
wherein the first operation comprises at least one of the following:
sending a non-access stratum (NAS) leave request to a network, or
sending a NAS paging rejection to the network (figures 14-16, par 13, 50, 104-106, 108); and
the second operation comprises at least one of the following:
sending an access stratum (AS) leave request to the network, or
sending an AS paging rejection to the network.
Regarding claim 2:
Kumar further discloses wherein the performing a first operation (non-access stratum (NAS), par 13, 50, 100, 104-106, 108, claim 2) comprises: performing the first operation in a case that a first condition is met ((paging rejection) par 13, 50, 100, 104-106, 108, claim 2), wherein the first condition comprises at least one of the following:
the terminal needs to send paging restriction information to the network;
the terminal needs to delete paging restriction information;
NAS information is sent to the network in a case that the terminal sends a leave request or a paging rejection to the network (figures 14-16, par 13, 50, 104-106, 108); or
first indication information sent by the network is received, wherein the first indication information is used to indicate at least one of the following:
allowing the terminal to concurrently send paging restriction information when sending a NAS leave request or a NAS paging rejection; and
not allowing the terminal to send paging restriction information when sending an AS leave request or an AS paging rejection.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 depends on claim 1. The claimed limitation of claim 1 recites “performing a first operation or a second operation”. Because of the “or” clause in claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the examiner has considered only one of the limitation “performing a first operation” of claim 1. Accordingly, the claimed limitation of claim 3 “wherein the performing a second operation comprises: performing the second operation in a case that a second condition is met, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of the following: the terminal prefers to be released to an inactive state; or the terminal prefers to be released immediately” is not considered because this limitation relates to the “second operation” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4:
Kumar further discloses wherein before the step of performing a first operation or a second operation, the method further comprises:
receiving first indication information sent by the network, wherein the first indication information is used to indicate at least one of the following:
allowing the terminal to concurrently send paging restriction information when sending a NAS leave request (par 101, 179-181) or a NAS paging rejection; or
not allowing the terminal to concurrently send paging restriction information when sending an AS leave request or an AS paging rejection.
Regarding claim 5:
As shown in figures 1-17, Kumar discloses an information processing method, performed by a third communication device (non-access stratum (NAS), par 13, 50, 100, 104-106, 108, claim 2) and comprising:
obtaining at least one of the following:
first information, a notification that the terminal enters an inactive state (par 162-166), information used to instruct to delete paging restriction information, or second information; and
performing a fifth operation according to the obtained information, wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following:
paging restriction information, information used to request to be released to an inactive state (par 164), state release tendency information, or a terminal capability; and
the second information comprises at least one of the following:
a network policy or a network capability; and
the fifth operation comprises at least one of the following:
determining that a priority of the paging restriction information is higher than a priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state, or determining that a priority of the paging restriction information is higher than a priority of the state release tendency information;
determining that a priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state is higher than a priority of the paging restriction information, or
determining that a priority of the state release tendency information is higher than a priority of the paging restriction information;
determining to accept paging restriction information, or
determining not to accept paging restriction information (par 53, 104);
releasing the terminal to an idle state, or
releasing the terminal to an inactive state;
deleting paging restriction information;
sending second indication information, wherein the second indication information is used to indicate one of the following:
accepting paging restriction information and not accepting paging restriction information; or sending third indication information, wherein the third indication information is used to indicate at least one of the following:
supporting a paging restriction function or not supporting a paging restriction function.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 depends on claim 5. The claimed limitation of claim 5 recites “obtaining at least one of the following: first information, a notification that the terminal enters an inactive state, information used to instruct to delete paging restriction information, or second information”. Because of the “or” clause in claim 5, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the examiner has considered only one of the limitations “first information…..” of claim 5. Accordingly, the claimed limitation of claim 6 “the terminal capability” is not considered because this limitation relates to the “second information” of claim 5. See below:
the terminal capability comprises at least one of the following: the terminal supports a paging restriction function, the terminal supports a leave network function, or the terminal supports a paging rejection function; and/or
the network capability comprises at least one of the following: a network supports a paging restriction function, the network supports a leave network function, or the network supports a paging rejection function; and/or
the network policy comprises at least one of the following:
a paging restriction related operation is performed on the terminal by using paging restriction information of the terminal, or
paging restriction information of the terminal is not used;
paging restriction is performed on the terminal, or paging restriction is not performed on the terminal;
state release tendency information of the terminal is used, or state release tendency information of the terminal is not used;
information, of the terminal, about tending to be released to an inactive state is used, or information, of the terminal, about tending to be released to an inactive state is not used;
a priority of the paging restriction information is higher than a priority of the state release tendency information, or a priority of the paging restriction information is higher than a priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state; or
a priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state is higher than a priority of the paging restriction information, or a priority of the state release tendency information is higher than a priority of the paging restriction information; and/or
the determining to accept paging restriction information comprises at least one of the following:
storing the paging restriction information;
releasing the terminal to an idle state; or
sending the second indication information to a radio access network (RAN), wherein the second indication information indicates accepting paging restriction information; and/or
the determining not to accept paging restriction information comprises at least one of the following:
discarding or ignoring the paging restriction information;
instructing the RAN to release the terminal to a non-connected state;
sending the second indication information to the RAN, wherein the second indication information instructs not to accept paging restriction information; or
in a case that the notification that the terminal enters an inactive state is received, keeping the terminal in an inactive state.
Regarding claim 7:
Kumar further discloses wherein the determining not to accept paging restriction information (par 53) and/or releasing the terminal to an inactive state comprises:
in a case that a fifth condition is met, determining not to accept the paging restriction information (par 53) and/or releasing the terminal to an inactive state, wherein
the fifth condition comprises at least one of the following:
the first information comprises paging restriction information;
the notification that the terminal enters an inactive state is received (figure 7, par 27, 162-166);
the first information comprises one of the following: information used to request to be released to an inactive state and state release tendency information, wherein the state release tendency information is used to indicate tending to be released to an inactive state;
the network policy comprises at least one of the following: paging restriction is not performed on the terminal, paging restriction information of the terminal is not used, the priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state is higher than the priority of the paging restriction information, the priority of the state release tendency information is higher than the priority of the paging restriction information, state release tendency information of the terminal is used, or information, of the terminal, about tending to be released to an inactive state is used; or
it is determined that the priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state is higher than the priority of the paging restriction information, or it is determined that the priority of the state release tendency information is higher than the priority of the paging restriction information.
Regarding claim 8:
Kumar further discloses wherein the determining to accept paging restriction information and/or releasing the terminal to an idle state (par 164, 168) comprises:
in a case that a sixth condition is met, determining to accept the paging restriction information and/or releasing the terminal to an idle state (par 164, 168), wherein
the sixth condition comprises at least one of the following:
the first information comprises paging restriction information (paging procedure, see figures 2C and 2D, par 48, 59-61);
the first information comprises state release tendency information, wherein the state release tendency information is used to indicate tending to be released to an idle state;
the network policy comprises at least one of the following:
a paging restriction related operation is performed on the terminal by using paging restriction information of the terminal, paging restriction is performed on the terminal, the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state, the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the state release tendency information, state release tendency information of the terminal is not used, or information, of the terminal, about tending to be released to an inactive state is not used; it is determined that the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state, or it is determined that the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the state release tendency information; or a leave request or a paging rejection of the terminal is received at the same time of receiving the paging restriction information.
Regarding claim 9:
Kumar further discloses wherein the determining to accept paging restriction information and/or to releasing the terminal to an idle state (par 164, 168) comprises:
in a case that a sixth condition is met, determining to accept the paging restriction information and/or releasing the terminal to an idle state (par 164, 168), wherein the sixth condition comprises at least one of the following:
the first information comprises paging restriction information (paging procedure, see figures 2C and 2D, par 48, 59-61), and the notification that the terminal enters an inactive state is received (figure 7, par 76, 162-166);
the first information comprises paging restriction information (paging procedure, see figures 2C and 2D, par 48, 59-61) and one of the following:
information used to request to be released to an inactive state and state release tendency information (figure 7, par 76, 162-166), wherein the state release tendency information is used to indicate tending to be released to an inactive state (figure 7, par 76, 162-166);
the network policy comprises at least one of the following:
a paging restriction related operation is performed on the terminal by using paging restriction information of the terminal, paging restriction is performed on the terminal, the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state, or the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the state release tendency information; or
it is determined that the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state, or it is determined that the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the state release tendency information.
Regarding claim 10:
Kumar further discloses in a case that a seventh condition is met, subscribing to the notification that the terminal enters an inactive state from a radio access network (RAN) (figure 7, par 76, 162-166), wherein the seventh condition comprises at least one of the following:
the terminal supports a paging restriction function;
the network supports and/or allows the terminal to use a paging restriction function; or
the network policy comprises at least one of the following:
a paging restriction related operation is performed on the terminal by using paging restriction information of the terminal, paging restriction is performed on the terminal, the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state, or the priority of the paging restriction information is higher than the priority of the state release tendency information.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 depends on claim 5. The claimed limitation of claim 5 recites “first information, a notification that the terminal enters an inactive state, information used to instruct to delete paging restriction information, or second information”. Because of the “or” clause in claim 5, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the examiner has considered only one of the limitations “first information” of claim 5. Accordingly, the claimed limitation of claim 11 “wherein the deleting paging restriction information comprises: in a case that an eighth condition is met, deleting the paging restriction information” is not considered because this limitation relates to the “information used to instruct to delete paging restriction information”. See below:
wherein the deleting paging restriction information comprises: in a case that an eighth condition is met, deleting the paging restriction information, wherein the eighth condition comprises at least one of the following: information used to instruct to delete paging restriction information is received; or a context of the terminal stores paging restriction information.
Regarding claim 12:
Kumar further discloses sending first indication information (par 162-166), wherein the first indication information is used to indicate at least one of the following:
allowing the terminal to concurrently send paging restriction information when sending a non-access stratum (NAS) leave request (par 181) or a NAS paging rejection; or
not allowing the terminal to concurrently send paging restriction information when sending an access stratum (AS) leave request or an AS paging rejection.
Regarding claim 13:
Kumar further discloses sending the first indication information in a case that a thirteenth condition is met, wherein the thirteenth condition comprises at least one of the following:
the terminal supports a NAS leave network function (par 100);
a network supports and/or allows the terminal to use a NAS leave network function;
the terminal supports a NAS paging rejection function;
the network supports NAS and/or allows the terminal to use a NAS paging rejection function;
the terminal supports a NAS paging restriction function; or
the network supports and/or allows the terminal to use a NAS paging restriction function.
Regarding claim 14:
Kumar further discloses sending a communication device, comprising a processor (160 in figure 1A), a memory (140 in figure 1A), and a program or an instruction that is stored in the memory and that can be run on the processor (160 in figure 1A), wherein the program or the instruction is executed by the processor (160 in figure 1A) to implement the steps of the information processing method according to claim 1 (figure 1A, par 109-114).
Regarding claim 15:
Kumar further discloses performing the first operation in a case that a first condition is met, wherein the first condition comprises at least one of the following:
the terminal needs to send paging restriction information to the network (figures 14-16, par 13, 50, 104-106, 108);
the terminal needs to delete paging restriction information;
NAS information is sent to the network in a case that the terminal sends a leave request or a paging rejection to the network; or
first indication information sent by the network is received, wherein the first indication information is used to indicate at least one of the following:
allowing the terminal to concurrently send paging restriction information when sending a NAS leave request or a NAS paging rejection; and
not allowing the terminal to send paging restriction information when sending an AS leave request or an AS paging rejection.
Regarding claim 16:
Kumar further discloses wherein the performing a second operation comprises: performing the second operation in a case that a second condition is met, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of the following:
the terminal prefers to be released to an inactive state (par 156-157); or
the terminal prefers to be released immediately.
Regarding claim 17:
Kumar further discloses receiving first indication information sent by the network, wherein the first indication information is used to indicate at least one of the following:
allowing the terminal to concurrently send paging restriction information when sending a NAS leave request or a NAS paging rejection (par 181); or
not allowing the terminal to concurrently send paging restriction information when sending an AS leave request or an AS paging rejection.
Regarding claim 18:
Kumar further discloses a communication device (figure 1A), comprising a processor (160 in figure 1A), a memory (140 in figure 1A), and a program or an instruction that is stored in the memory (140 in figure 1A) and that can be run on the processor (160 in figure 1A), wherein the program or the instruction is executed by the processor (160 in figure 1A) to implement the steps of the information processing method according to claim 5 (figure 1A, par 109-114).
Regarding claim 19:
Kumar further discloses wherein the terminal capability comprises at least one of the following:
the terminal supports a paging restriction function, the terminal supports a leave network function, or the terminal supports a paging rejection function (figures 14-16, par 13, 50, 104-106, 108); and/or
the network capability comprises at least one of the following: a network supports a paging restriction function, the network supports a leave network function, or the network supports a paging rejection function; and/or
the network policy comprises at least one of the following: a paging restriction related operation is performed on the terminal by using paging restriction information of the terminal, or paging restriction information of the terminal is not used;
paging restriction is performed on the terminal, or paging restriction is not performed on the terminal;
state release tendency information of the terminal is used, or state release tendency information of the terminal is not used;
information, of the terminal, about tending to be released to an inactive state is used, or information, of the terminal, about tending to be released to an inactive state is not used;
a priority of the paging restriction information is higher than a priority of the state release tendency information, or a priority of the paging restriction information is higher than a priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state; or
a priority of the information about tending to be released to an inactive state is higher than a priority of the paging restriction information, or a priority of the state release tendency information is higher than a priority of the paging restriction information; and/or
the determining to accept paging restriction information comprises at least one of the following:
storing the paging restriction information;
releasing the terminal to an idle state; or
sending the second indication information to a radio access network (RAN), wherein the second indication information indicates accepting paging restriction information; and/or
the determining not to accept paging restriction information comprises at least one of the following:
discarding or ignoring the paging restriction information;
instructing the RAN to release the terminal to a non-connected state;
sending the second indication information to the RAN, wherein the second indication information instructs not to accept paging restriction information; or
in a case that the notification that the terminal enters an inactive state is received, keeping the terminal in an inactive state.
Regarding claim 20:
Kumar further discloses a processor (160 in figure 1A), a memory (140 in figure 1A),, and a program or an instruction that is stored in the memory (140 in figure 1A), and that can be run on the processor (160 in figure 1A),, wherein the program or the instruction is executed by the processor (160 in figure 1A), to implement the steps of the information processing method according to claim 12 (figure 1A, par 109-114).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al. (US 9380532) disclose a method and a system using an extended paging period to page. In the method, the MME/SGSN negotiates with a UE to obtain a first extended paging period; the MME/SGSN sends the first extended paging period and paging indication information which indicates to use the first extended paging period to page to a radio access network; the radio access network sends the first extended paging period in the system information and uses the first extended paging period to send a paging message; the UE selects a second extended paging period according to an extended paging period needed by the UE itself and the first extended paging period, and monitors the paging message according to the second extended paging period.
Islam et al. (US 10517067) disclose a user equipment (UE) may receive a paging grant that includes a short paging message and a notification of a reason that the short paging message was triggered; determine that the paging grant includes the short paging message; and obtain the notification of the reason that the short paging message was triggered based at least in part on determining that the paging grant includes the short paging message.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631