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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 63/248,367 and 17/518,404, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Application No. 63/248,367 fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the following limitations in Applicant's claims:
In claim 1, identify a request message, from a user equipment (UE), that includes a requested offset value;
generate an accept message that includes a negotiated offset value, the accept message to be provided to the UE;
generate a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE; and
determine, based on a response from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid.
In claim 2, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value.
In claim 4, identify a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message.
In claim 5, wherein the response message includes a global unique temporary identifier (GUTI) corresponding to the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value.
In claim 6, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value during a window.
In claim 7, wherein the window is a paging cycle.
In claim 8, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value subsequent to the accept message being provided.
In claim 11, receiving a request message, from a user equipment (UE), that includes a requested offset value;
transmitting an accept message that includes a negotiated offset value, the accept message to be provided to the UE;
transmitting a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE; and
determining, based on a response received from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid.
In claim 12, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value.
In claim 13, identifying a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein determining that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes determining that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message.
In claim 14, wherein the UE is paged using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value during a window.
In claim 15, wherein the UE is paged using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value subsequent to the accept message being transmitted.
In claim 17, identify a request message, from the UE, that includes a requested offset value;
generate an accept message that includes a negotiated offset value, the accept message to be provided to the UE;
generate a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE; and
determine, based on a response from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid.
In claim 18, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value.
In claim 19, identify a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message.
In claim 20, wherein the response message includes a global unique temporary identifier (GUTI) corresponding to the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value.
Application No. 17/518,404 fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the following limitations in Applicant's claims:
In claim 1, generate a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE; and
determine, based on a response from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid.
In claim 2, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value.
In claim 4, identify a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message.
In claim 5, wherein the response message includes a global unique temporary identifier (GUTI) corresponding to the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value.
In claim 6, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value during a window.
In claim 8, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value subsequent to the accept message being provided.
In claim 11, transmitting a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE; and
determining, based on a response received from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid.
In claim 12, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value.
In claim 13, identifying a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein determining that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes determining that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message.
In claim 14, wherein the UE is paged using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value during a window.
In claim 15, wherein the UE is paged using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value subsequent to the accept message being transmitted.
In claim 17, generate a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE; and
determine, based on a response from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid.
In claim 18, wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value.
In claim 19, identify a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message.
In claim 20, wherein the response message includes a global unique temporary identifier (GUTI) corresponding to the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 11/30/2023, 7/1/2025, and 10/28/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0034780 A1) (as disclosed in Applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a network element (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network. Since Lin’s network makes determinations based on feedback, it inherently includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions that are executed by one or more processors) to:
identify a request message, from a user equipment (UE), that includes a requested offset value (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 131, UE 101 includes the IMSI offset value in a “requested IMSI offset” IE in a TAU REQUEST message and send to the network);
generate an accept message that includes a negotiated offset value, the accept message to be provided to the UE (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 132, the network includes a “negotiated IMSI offset” IE in a TAU ACCEPT message and send to UE 101);
generate a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network); and
determine, based on a response from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network. Claim 9 discloses wherein the network considers one IMSI parameter as invalid if the network receives a paging response from the UE when the network pages the UE using paging occasions derived from the other IMSI parameter).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Lin further discloses wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value based at least in part on a lower layer failure related to a complete message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose if a lower layer failure occurs before the message TRACKING AREA UPDATE COMPLETE is successfully received by the network, then the network does not know whether UE 101 has received the TAU ACCEPT message or not. As a result, (assume before the TAU procedure the UE does not has assigned IMSI offset value, and during the TAU procedure the network assigns an IMSI offset value to the UE in TAU ACCEPT message) the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2 above, Lin further discloses wherein the complete message is a tracking area update complete message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose if a lower layer failure occurs before the message TRACKING AREA UPDATE COMPLETE is successfully received by the network, then the network does not know whether UE 101 has received the TAU ACCEPT message or not).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Lin further discloses identify a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network. Claim 9 discloses wherein the network considers one IMSI parameter as invalid if the network receives a paging response from the UE when the network pages the UE using paging occasions derived from the other IMSI parameter).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, Lin further discloses wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value subsequent to the accept message being provided (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose if a lower layer failure occurs before the message TRACKING AREA UPDATE COMPLETE is successfully received by the network, then the network does not know whether UE 101 has received the TAU ACCEPT message or not. As a result, (assume before the TAU procedure the UE does not has assigned IMSI offset value, and during the TAU procedure the network assigns an IMSI offset value to the UE in TAU ACCEPT message) the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Lin further discloses wherein the negotiated offset value is a negotiated IMSI offset value (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 132, the network includes a “negotiated IMSI offset” IE in a TAU ACCEPT message and send to UE 101).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, Lin further discloses wherein the request message is a tracking area update request message, and wherein the accept message is a tracking area update accept message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 131, UE 101 includes the IMSI offset value in a “requested IMSI offset” IE in a TAU REQUEST message and send to the network. In step 132, the network includes a “negotiated IMSI offset” IE in a TAU ACCEPT message and send to UE 101).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses a method of operating a network element (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network), comprising:
receiving a request message, from a user equipment (UE), that includes a requested offset value (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 131, UE 101 includes the IMSI offset value in a “requested IMSI offset” IE in a TAU REQUEST message and send to the network);
transmitting an accept message that includes a negotiated offset value, the accept message to be provided to the UE (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 132, the network includes a “negotiated IMSI offset” IE in a TAU ACCEPT message and send to UE 101);
transmitting a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network); and
determining, based on a response received from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network. Claim 9 discloses wherein the network considers one IMSI parameter as invalid if the network receives a paging response from the UE when the network pages the UE using paging occasions derived from the other IMSI parameter).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Lin further discloses wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value based at least in part on a lower layer failure related to a complete message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose if a lower layer failure occurs before the message TRACKING AREA UPDATE COMPLETE is successfully received by the network, then the network does not know whether UE 101 has received the TAU ACCEPT message or not. As a result, (assume before the TAU procedure the UE does not has assigned IMSI offset value, and during the TAU procedure the network assigns an IMSI offset value to the UE in TAU ACCEPT message) the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 11 above, Lin further discloses identifying a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein determining that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes determining that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network. Claim 9 discloses wherein the network considers one IMSI parameter as invalid if the network receives a paging response from the UE when the network pages the UE using paging occasions derived from the other IMSI parameter).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 11 above, Lin further discloses wherein the UE is paged using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value subsequent to the accept message being transmitted (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose if a lower layer failure occurs before the message TRACKING AREA UPDATE COMPLETE is successfully received by the network, then the network does not know whether UE 101 has received the TAU ACCEPT message or not. As a result, (assume before the TAU procedure the UE does not has assigned IMSI offset value, and during the TAU procedure the network assigns an IMSI offset value to the UE in TAU ACCEPT message) the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 11 above, Lin further discloses wherein the request message is a tracking area update request message, and wherein the accept message is a tracking area update accept message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 131, UE 101 includes the IMSI offset value in a “requested IMSI offset” IE in a TAU REQUEST message and send to the network. In step 132, the network includes a “negotiated IMSI offset” IE in a TAU ACCEPT message and send to UE 101).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses a network element (Figure 1 and paragraph 0020 disclose an evolved packet system (EPS) or 5GS network) comprising:
memory to store messages received from a user equipment (UE); and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network. Claim 9 discloses wherein the network considers one IMSI parameter as invalid if the network receives a paging response from the UE when the network pages the UE using paging occasions derived from the other IMSI parameter. Since Lin’s network makes determinations based on messages from UEs, it inherently includes memory to store messages received from a user equipment (UE); and one or more processors coupled to the memory) to:
identify a request message, from the UE, that includes a requested offset value (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 131, UE 101 includes the IMSI offset value in a “requested IMSI offset” IE in a TAU REQUEST message and send to the network);
generate an accept message that includes a negotiated offset value, the accept message to be provided to the UE (Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 disclose in step 132, the network includes a “negotiated IMSI offset” IE in a TAU ACCEPT message and send to UE 101);
generate a paging message with a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) value and a second IMSI value, the paging message to be provided to the UE (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network); and
determine, based on a response from the UE, that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network. Claim 9 discloses wherein the network considers one IMSI parameter as invalid if the network receives a paging response from the UE when the network pages the UE using paging occasions derived from the other IMSI parameter).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 17 above, Lin further discloses wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value based at least in part on a lower layer failure related to a complete message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose if a lower layer failure occurs before the message TRACKING AREA UPDATE COMPLETE is successfully received by the network, then the network does not know whether UE 101 has received the TAU ACCEPT message or not. As a result, (assume before the TAU procedure the UE does not has assigned IMSI offset value, and during the TAU procedure the network assigns an IMSI offset value to the UE in TAU ACCEPT message) the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 17 above, Lin further discloses identify a response message, from the UE, that indicates one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value, wherein to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid includes to determine that one of the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value is invalid based at least in part on the response message (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network. Claim 9 discloses wherein the network considers one IMSI parameter as invalid if the network receives a paging response from the UE when the network pages the UE using paging occasions derived from the other IMSI parameter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or 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 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Fang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0203906 A1) (hereinafter Fang).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Lin further discloses wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network).
Lin does not explicitly disclose wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE during a window.
In analogous art, Fang discloses wherein the paging message is to be provided to the UE during a window (Paragraph 0011 discloses transmitting the paging message can include using, during a paging cycle based on the paging cycle structure, a single paging slot to transmit the paging message, where the single paging slot is associated with the two or more subscriber identities).
It 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 to incorporate transmitting a paging message during a paging cycle, as described in Fang, with paging a UE, as described in Lin, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining transmitting a paging message during a paging cycle of Fang with paging a UE of Lin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Fang.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Lin and Fang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 6 above, Lin discloses the claimed invention except explicitly disclosing wherein the window is a paging cycle.
In analogous art, Fang discloses wherein the window is a paging cycle (Paragraph 0011 discloses transmitting the paging message can include using, during a paging cycle based on the paging cycle structure, a single paging slot to transmit the paging message, where the single paging slot is associated with the two or more subscriber identities).
It 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 to incorporate transmitting a paging message during a paging cycle, as described in Fang, with paging a UE, as described in Lin, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining transmitting a paging message during a paging cycle of Fang with paging a UE of Lin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Fang.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Lin and Fang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 11 above, Lin further discloses wherein the UE is paged using the first IMSI value and the second IMSI value (Figure 1 and paragraph 0023 disclose the network does not know whether UE 101 will monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from original IMSI value without offset or monitor paging using the paging occasion (paging timing) derived from IMSI value with offset (i.e., alternative IMSI value). In accordance with one novel aspect, when there is need to page the UE, the network uses two (alternative) IMSI values to determine the paging timing, e.g., the paging occasions for UE 101, until one of the (alternative) IMSI value(s) can be considered as invalid by the network).
Lin does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE is paged during a window.
In analogous art, Fang discloses wherein the UE is paged during a window (Paragraph 0011 discloses transmitting the paging message can include using, during a paging cycle based on the paging cycle structure, a single paging slot to transmit the paging message, where the single paging slot is associated with the two or more subscriber identities).
It 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 to incorporate transmitting a paging message during a paging cycle, as described in Fang, with paging a UE, as described in Lin, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining transmitting a paging message during a paging cycle of Fang with paging a UE of Lin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Fang.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Lin and Fang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering claims 5 and 20, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Lin, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of wherein the response message includes a global unique temporary identifier (GUTI) corresponding to the first IMSI value or the second IMSI value in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claims 5 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Sriram et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0122569 A1) discloses network awareness of multi-universal subscriber identity module (MUSIM) devices by assistance information signaling and
Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0147405 A1) discloses a controlling method for wireless communication device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to MARK G. PANNELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4245. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (Mountain Time).
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571) 272-7915. 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.
/Mark G. Pannell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642