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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 7/15/2026.
Election without Traverse
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV, formed by claims 1, 2, 16-19, 39, in the reply filed on 8/31/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 3-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/31/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, a method claim, is the broadest independent claim and is interpreted as follows: 1. (Original) A method for determining a paging group, performed by a first network device, and comprising:
determining paging group assistance information by negotiating with a second network device (claimed “second network device” is not a generic placeholder or a replacement for “means” as in MPEP 2181), wherein the paging group assistance information is configured to determine a paging group of a terminal (claim 1 does not comprise means-plus-function language as explained in MPEP 2181 and is not a single means claim).
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 1-2, 16-19, 39 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.
MPEP 2173.04 “Breadth is Not Indefiniteness” explains that a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim). In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness.").
In this case, the independent claims recite: “determining paging group assistance information by negotiating with a second network device, wherein the paging group assistance information is configured to determine a paging group of a terminal.”
This “genus” excerpt from the claim covers at least the following “species”:
1. "determining paging group assistance information by negotiating with a second network device, wherein the paging group assistance information is configured to determine which paging group belongs to". The specification enables this embodiment in [0055]- [0056], where the negotiated assistance information comprises group identity, and the group identity comprises information about the terminal, for example, a reduced capacity terminal. In this case, the terminal already belongs to a paging group – the determination step is to determine to which group the terminal already belongs.
2. "determining paging group assistance information by negotiating with a second network device, wherein the paging group assistance information is configured to determine which paging group to assign to a terminal". The specification enables this embodiment in [0031], where the terminal negotiates its paging probability with a core network in advance, and a base station broadcasts a relationship with the paging group. In this way, the terminal can determine the paging group it will belong to.
Because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim, the genus claim can be interpreted in more than one way, and the above-demonstrated ambiguity makes unclear which species is covered, rendering the claims indefinite. The dependent claims incorporate the limitations of the independent claims, and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons above. In order to overcome indefiniteness, the Examiner recommends amending the claims as in one of the options above, which would NOT create a new matter issue, because all the alternatives are supported in the specification and drawings. For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as "1 or 2".
Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered
The information disclosure statement filed on 9/8/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because:
The NPL reference is missing a date. See MPEP 609.04(a), Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement.
The foreign references are missing a country code. See MPEP 609.04(a), Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any resubmission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing elements will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Double Patenting
Application number 18/290,011 now patent 12,701,546, has the same inventive entity as the instant application, and their claims are similar to the claims of the instant case; however, a double patenting rejection does not need to be applied because the reference application's claims fall short at least of claimed “determining paging group assistance information by negotiating with a second network device”.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Hoglund et al (Publication Number 2022/0086759), hereinafter Hoglund: Hoglund teaches determining paging group assistance information by negotiating with a second network device (claimed "assistance information" equates to "paging probabilities" which are negotiated between the wireless device 20 and base station 18 in Hoglund par. 115: "base station 18 determines both the number of paging probability types and the number of the wake-up signal groups in the cell, and any of the mappings described above can be applied to have a common understanding between the wireless device 20 and base station 18 about the wireless device's wake-up signal group"), wherein the paging group assistance information is configured to determine a paging group of a terminal (Hoglund par. 79, 80: wireless devices or UE's are classified based on a paging probability and assigned to wake-up signal groups based on paging probability type; a network node such as a base station or the MME determines the paging probability type of each terminal based on parameters listed in par. 80-96).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Test for Obviousness
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 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-2, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al (publication number 2023/0397167), hereinafter Murray, and further in view of Berggren et al (publication number 2023/0379823), hereinafter Berggren.
Murray [0001] claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/091,608, filed on Oct. 14, 2020, entitled “Paging Enhancements for UE Power Savings”, hereinafter “Murray Provisional”.
Regarding claim 1, Murray teaches a method for determining a paging group, performed by a first network device (Murray Provisional, UE in Fig. 1), and comprising:
determining paging group assistance information by exchanging information with a second network device (Murray Provisional, par. 36: The paging group may be determined based on rules defined per the specification, based on paging preference/assistance information exchanged between the UE and the network, based on assignment from the network, or any combination thereof. Murray Provisional, par. 45: “3. The UE receives an RRCRelease message comprising paging assistance information. 4. The UE determines its paging group based, at least in part, on the paging assistance information provided by the network”), wherein the paging group assistance information is configured to determine a paging group of a terminal (Murray Provisional, par. 45: “3. The UE receives an RRCRelease message comprising paging assistance information. 4. The UE determines its paging group based, at least in part, on the paging assistance information provided by the network”).
Murray does not explicitly teach "negotiating".
Berggren uses the following terminology and acronyms:
Abstract, par. 3: Wake Up Signal, WUS. Radio Access Network, RAN, node is a base station. User equipment, UE
Par. 10: WUS group (e.g. WUS paging probability group)
Par. 35: Core network, CN, node.
Par. 73:
The RAN node receives configuration information, as WUS network assistance information.
The configuration information comprises configuration regarding what WUS group the wireless device belongs to.
The WUS network assistance Information is used by the RAN node to help determine the WUS group used when paging the wireless device. WUS network assistance information enables applying a predetermined set of rules to determine the WUS group for use in paging escalation.
WUS network assistance information comprises paging probability information.
The CN node stores the WUS Assistance Information parameter in a context, such as Mobility Management, MM, context and provides it to the RAN node when paging the wireless device.
WUS assistance information can be used interchangeably with WUS network assistance information.
Berggren teaches determining assistance information by negotiating with a second network device (Berggren par. 45: Information including paging probability (NAS.sub.prob) is negotiated between the wireless device and CN node. Par. 59: the wireless device may switch WUS group according to a paging probability negotiated with the CN node. Par. 123: CN node 600 communicates with a wireless device for assistance information, such as negotiating the paging probability with the wireless device. Par. 85: The wireless device has rules information stored in its memory and derives the WUS group from rules information received from the core network. For example, the information may be indicative of a paging probability provided by the core network).
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 modify the disclosure of Murray, by incorporating the teachings of Berggren into the disclosure of Murray, because there is a need for radio access network nodes, wireless devices, core network nodes and methods for WUS communication, which mitigate, alleviate or address the shortcomings existing and provide a further reduction of false wake-ups caused by wireless devices which are not reachable in their last used cell, such as wireless devices moving out of the coverage of their last used cell and/or into the coverage of a new cell, such as a neighboring cell of their last used cell (Berggren par. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Murray teaches wherein the paging group assistance information comprises at least one of:
quantity information indicating a total number of paging groups (Murray Provisional, par. 42: “After determining a UE's paging probability, the paging group to which the UE is assigned could be determined based on a set of thresholds; e.g. probThreshList, wherein the total number of paging groups is defined as the number of entries in probThreshList + 1.”);
identification information indicating a paging group identity (Murray Provisional, par. 42 and Table 5 right after par. 42: paging groups 1, 2, 3, 4); and
paging probability information indicating a paging probability corresponding to a paging group (Murray Provisional, par. 42: “the paging groups are defined based on paging probability, P. The UE could determine its paging probability autonomously or based on assistance information provided by the network”).
Regarding claim 16, Murray teaches wherein the first network device is an access network device (Murray Provisional, Fig. 22A: base stations 114 described in par. 94) accessed by the terminal (Murray Provisional, Fig. 22A: WTRUs 102 described in par. 89; par. 97: “The base stations 114a may communicate with one or more of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, or 102g over an air interface 115/116/117”) after switching a cell (Murray Provisional, par. 108: handover control. Par. 115: “Each of the eNode-Bs 160a, 160b, and 160c may be associated with a particular cell and may be configured to handle radio resource management decisions, handover decisions”), and the second network device is a core network device (Murray Provisional, Fig. 22A: Core Network).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray, in view of Berggren, and further in view of Tang et al (publication number 2019/0028942), hereinafter Tang.
Regarding claim 39, Murray teaches a communication device, wherein the communication device (Murray Provisional, Fig. 22A: WTRUs 102 described in par. 89) comprises at least:
a processor and an interface circuit (Murray Provisional par. 146: FIG. 22F is a block diagram of an example apparatus or device WTRU 102; par. 147 processor 118; transceiver 120);
the interface circuit is configured to receive code instructions (Murray Provisional par. 162) and transmit them to the processor (Murray Provisional par. 146: FIG. 22F is a block diagram of an example apparatus or device WTRU 102; par. 147 processor 118; transceiver 120); and
the processor is configured to run the code instructions (Murray Provisional par. 162) to perform:
determining paging group assistance information by exchanging information with a second network device (Murray Provisional, par. 36: The paging group may be determined based on rules defined per the specification, based on paging preference/assistance information exchanged between the UE and the network, based on assignment from the network, or any combination thereof. Murray Provisional, par. 45: “3. The UE receives an RRCRelease message comprising paging assistance information. 4. The UE determines its paging group based, at least in part, on the paging assistance information provided by the network”), wherein the paging group assistance information is configured to determine a paging group of a terminal (Murray Provisional, par. 45: “3. The UE receives an RRCRelease message comprising paging assistance information. 4. The UE determines its paging group based, at least in part, on the paging assistance information provided by the network”).
Murray does not explicitly teach "negotiating".
Berggren teaches: determining assistance information by negotiating with a second network device (Berggren par. 45: Information including paging probability (NAS.sub.prob) is negotiated between the wireless device and CN node. Par. 59: the wireless device may switch WUS group according to a paging probability negotiated with the CN node. Par. 123: CN node 600 communicates with a wireless device for assistance information, such as negotiating the paging probability with the wireless device. Par. 85: The wireless device has rules information stored in its memory and derives the WUS group from rules information received from the core network. For example, the information may be indicative of a paging probability provided by the core network).
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 modify the disclosure of Murray, by incorporating the teachings of Berggren into the disclosure of Murray, because there is a need for radio access network nodes, wireless devices, core network nodes and methods for WUS communication, which mitigate, alleviate or address the shortcomings existing and provide a further reduction of false wake-ups caused by wireless devices which are not reachable in their last used cell, such as wireless devices moving out of the coverage of their last used cell and/or into the coverage of a new cell, such as a neighboring cell of their last used cell (Berggren par. 7).
Murray as modified does not explicitly teach "transmit instructions to the processor".
Tang teaches: the interface circuit is configured to receive code instructions and transmit them to the processor (Tang par. 236: After receiving the pre-handover instruction, the receiver 804 sends the pre-handover instruction to the processor 801, and the processor 801 sends the pre-handover instruction to the transmitter 803. Par. 43, 238: code instructions).
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 modify the disclosure of Murray as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Tang into the disclosure of Murray as modified, because the handover procedure in the prior art cannot meet a user requirement, and a quick efficient processing manner needs to be provided (Tang par. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and rejections set forth in this office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1, a method claim, is the broadest independent claim.
Regarding claim 17, Murray teaches a user equipment (UE) configured to request the second network device to send the paging group assistance information; however, Murray falls short of the UE sending a path switch request to a second network device, wherein the path switch request is configured to request the second network device to send the paging group assistance information; and the same UE also receiving a path switch response sent, according to the path switch request by the second network device, wherein the paging group assistance information is carried in the path switch response.
Dependent claims 18-19 incorporate all limitations of dependent claim 17, and therefore present allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the claims mentioned above in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights