DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-13, 15-27, received 20 October 2025. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-13, 15-27 is as follows:
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 20140342735 A1, hereafter referred to as Liao) in view of Watfa et al (US 20160100305 A1, hereafter referred to as Watfa).
Regarding claim 1, Liao teaches a core network node (15) comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
receive an indication, via control plane signaling, associated with a wireless device, the indication indicating whether to update a ProSe discovery identifier associated with the wireless device (Liao [0048] teaches receiving an attach request or a tracking area update request for requesting ProSe UE registration, from a UE);
one of update and refrain from updating the ProSe discovery identifier based at least on the received indication (Liao [0048-0051] teaches generating and updating or rejecting the ProSe UE registration); and
transmit the updated ProSe discovery identifier if the ProSe discovery identifier was updated (Liao [0048, 0050]).
However, Liao does not explicitly teach the ProSe discovery identifier for restricted ProSe direct discovery.
Watfa, in an analogous art, teaches the ProSe discovery identifier for restricted ProSe direct discovery. (Watfa [0104, 0105] teaches a wireless device registering with a Prose function for restricted discovery) such that Watfa teaches receiving an indication, via control plane signaling, associated with a wireless device, the indication indicating whether to update a ProSe discovery identifier for restricted ProSe discovery associated with the wireless device (Watfa [0104] teaches receiving a registration request for participating in restricted discovery, wherein the request to participate requests a ProSe ID for participating).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liao in view of Watfa in order to configure the updating of a ProSe discovery identifier for ProSe discovery associated with the wireless device, as taught by Liao, to include updating a ProSe discovery identifier for restricted ProSe direct discovery, as taught by Watfa.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to increase the security of the system whereby discovery only takes place with permission from the UE being discovered as is the case with restricted ProSe discovery. Furthermore, KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (Prose discovery identifier for open discovery, as taught by Liao) for another known element (ProSe discovery identifier for restricted discovery, as taught by Watfa) in order to yield predictable results (ProSe discovery and communication) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Liao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Liao teaches the core network node wherein the processing circuitry is configured to update the ProSe discovery identifier based on the ProSe discovery identifier being invalid (Liao [0080] teaches de-registering a ProSe ID based on the UE detaching from the ProSe service).
Regarding claim 7, Liao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Liao teaches the core network node wherein the indication is included in a NAS message indicating not to update the ProSe discovery identifier associated with the wireless device (Liao [0081] teaches the UE transmitting a detach request to detach from ProSe Service, wherein the communication is via NAS [0046]).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, they do no teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1 and 5.
Therefore, claims 8 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 15, Liao teaches a wireless device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
determine whether to update a ProSe discovery identifier associated with the wireless device (Liao [0055] teaches an application wanting to use Proximity Service to communicate and transmitting a ProSe indication to the EPS layer);
transmit, via control plane signaling, an indication associated with the wireless device based on the determination, the indication indicating whether to update the ProSe discovery identifier (Liao [0055] teaches transmitting an attach request or a tracking area update request for requesting ProSe UE registration to the core network); and
receive an updated ProSe discovery identifier if the indication indicated to update the ProSe discovery identifier (Liao [0057, Fig 5-S525, Fig6-S630]).
However, Liao does not explicitly teach the ProSe discovery identifier for restricted ProSe direct discovery.
Watfa, in an analogous art, teaches the ProSe discovery identifier for restricted ProSe direct discovery. (Watfa [0104, 0105] teaches a wireless device registering with a Prose function for restricted discovery) such that Watfa teaches determine whether to update a ProSe discovery identifier for restricted ProSe discovery associated with the wireless device (Watfa [0104] teaches a WTRU, upon interest in participating in restricted ProSe discovery, registering with a ProSe function for the restricted discovery to obtain a ProSe identifier).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liao in view of Watfa in order to configure the updating of a ProSe discovery identifier for ProSe discovery associated with the wireless device, as taught by Liao, to include updating a ProSe discovery identifier for restricted ProSe direct discovery, as taught by Watfa.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to increase the security of the system whereby discovery only takes place with permission from the UE being discovered as is the case with restricted ProSe discovery. Furthermore, KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (Prose discovery identifier for open discovery, as taught by Liao) for another known element (ProSe discovery identifier for restricted discovery, as taught by Watfa) in order to yield predictable results (ProSe discovery and communication) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claims 19 and 21, they do no teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 5 and 7.
Therefore, claims 19 and 21 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 5 and 7.
Regarding claims 22, 26 and 27, they do no teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 15, 19 and 21.
Therefore, claims 22, 26 and 27 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 15, 19 and 21.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 23, 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Liao (US 20140342735 A1, hereafter referred to as Liao) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Ahmad et al (US 20160295347 A1, hereafter referred to as Ahmad).
Regarding claim 2, Liao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Liao does not explicitly teach the core network node, wherein the indication is a discovery type indication configured to cause the ProSe discovery identifier to be updated.
Ahmad, in an analogous art, teaches the core network node, wherein the indication is a discovery type indication configured to cause the ProSe discovery identifier to be updated (Ahmad [0140] teaches a discovery request to receive the latest parameters).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liao in view of Ahmad in order to configure the indication configured to cause the ProSe discovery identifier to be updated, as taught by Liao, include a discovery type indication, as taught by Ahmad.
KSR rationale, B simple substitution of one known element (registration message, as taught by Liao) for another known element (discovery request, as taught by Ahmad) in order to yield predictable results (updating ProSe parameters at the UE) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, Liao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Liao does not explicitly teach the core network node wherein the ProSe discovery identifier is associated with a timer; and the processing circuitry (98) being configured to update the ProSe discovery identifier based on expiration of the timer.
Ahmad, in an analogous art, teaches the core network node wherein the ProSe discovery identifier is associated with a timer (Ahmad [0140] teaches validity timers); and
the processing circuitry being configured to update the ProSe discovery identifier based on expiration of the timer (Ahmad [0140] teaches upon expiration of the validity time, a trigger configured at the UE to send a new Discovery request).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liao in view of Ahmad according to the reasons set forth above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, they do no teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 2 and 4.
Therefore, claims 9 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 2 and 4.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, they do no teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 2 and 4.
Therefore, claims 16 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 2 and 4.
Regarding claims 23 and 25, they do no teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 16 and 18.
Therefore, claims 23 and 25 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 16 and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 6, 10, 13, 20, 24 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446