DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2025-12-10 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 46-54, 66 are pending for consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the Reply is acknowledged. The traversal is not found persuasive. The Reply recites MPEP 1850(III)(A), which relates to PCT Rule 13.2, and argues that the UE of claim 46 and network node of claim 55 are "two related articles such as a transmitter and a receiver" that are permitted under MPEP 1850(III)(A).
The Reply fails to consider the entire requirement of PCT Rule 13.2:
13.2 Circumstances in Which the Requirement of Unity of Invention Is to Be Considered Fulfilled
Where a group of inventions is claimed in one and the same international application, the requirement of unity of invention referred to in Rule 13.1 shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
In other words, the Reply fails to mention or identify any special technical features that contribute that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
It appears the Reply has misinterpreted or misconstrued the reasoning for restriction requirement, as the crux of the Reply’s argument is restriction is improper only because the inventions are directed to different devices as apparent in their markup:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To clarify, the Examiner asserts the groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. The fact they are different devices is not sole reason why the restriction was made. Rather, the restriction was made because the inventions do not share special technical features as exemplified that they are directed to different devices that perform different features. Any shared or corresponding features are not considered special technique features as they do not define contributions over the prior art.
UE of claim 46 and network node of claim 55 include both corresponding operations and completely different operations. Those corresponding operations are identified by the Reply:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These shared, corresponding features are directed to communicating cell-related configuration information between a UE and base station. However, these corresponding features are not considered “special technical features” as they do not define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. Communicating cell configurations information between UE and network nodes are well known, established principled operations in these arts. This is evident and supported by the fact the parent case PCT/EP2022/061125 which contains claims 1 and 16 that corresponding to instant claims 46 and 55 respectively were deemed not novel by four separate references (“X references:” EP2232722, WO 2011/075151, US2020/022017, US2013/215809) in addition to the USC 102 references used herein.
Furthermore, the Examiner considers the communication of information associated with configurations and UE data traffic to be different operations between claim 46 and 55 because in claim 46, it is explicitly required the UE determines said information, while in claim 55 this requirement, is not required – the UE of claim 55 does perform a determination. Accordingly, this is not a shared feature as they are patently distinct. Consequently, the only shared/corresponding operation between 46 and 55 are:
sending, to a user equipment (UE) one or more configurations for UE operation in the
cell;
receiving, from a network node of the wireless network, one or more configurations for UE operation in the cell;
As noted above, these are well known principles in the art that do not meet the threshold of being a special technical feature as defined by PCT Rule 13.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims of the non-elected invention Group 1 (Claims 55-65, 67) are considered WITHDRAWN.
35 USC §112(a) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claim(s) 53
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim(s) recite variants of:
wherein the determined information or one or more indications thereof sent to the network node include an indication of a UE-preferred configuration not included in the received configurations…
Furthermore, independent claim 46 requires:
determining one or more of the following information associated with at least the received configurations…
Therefore, the scope encompasses “the determined information”:
include an indication of a UE-preferred configuration not included in the received configurations
associated with at least the received configurations.
Consequently, the claim effectively requires that the UE-preferred configuration not included in the received configurations is included in the determined information but UE-preferred configuration is also associated with the receives configurations. This is somewhat of an oddity/contradiction in that the UE-preferred configuration is not part of the received configurations but also “associated” with the received configurations.
The Specification fails to disclose details of this contradiction. In fact, it teaches only the opposite scenario in which the UE-preferred configuration is included in the received configurations:
[0307] In some embodiments, the received configurations can include a plurality of configurations previously used by the UE for data traffic patterns corresponding to the UE data traffic. In such embodiments, the determined information or one or more indications thereof sent to the network node include an indication of one of the following:
[0308] a UE-preferred one of the previously-used configurations, or …
In opposite scenario again, where the received configuration is explicitly described to be different/distinguished from the UE-preferred configuration (and therefore not associated)
[0321] In other of these embodiments, the indication of the one or more criteria indicates UE prioritization of QoS for the UE data traffic or of EE due to remaining energy in the UE's battery. In some variants of these embodiments, the further configuration (e.g., received in block 950) provides an increased EE or an increased QoS, relative to the UE's current configuration, based on whether the indication indicates UE prioritization of QoS or EE, respectively. In some cases, the further configuration is different than the UE-preferred configuration and/or the UE-preferred configuration is not supported in the cell.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 48
similar
The term(s) is a subjective/relative term which renders the claim(s) indefinite. Furthermore, the limitations of the term(s) is/are not defined by claim language and the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. According, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim(s) 53
preferred
The term(s) is a subjective/relative term which renders the claim(s) indefinite. Furthermore, the limitations of the term(s) is/are not defined by claim language and the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. According, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim(s) 54
The claim(s) recite variants of:
… responsive to…
UE mobility operation
a network-configured periodic or semi-statistical schedule
That is, the claims literally require a response to a noun (i.e., person, place, or thing). This is similar to, e.g., "in response to the house" which is grammatically confusing. Contrast this with “in response to detecting a characteristic/property of the noun” (e.g., in response to detecting the presence of the house) or “in response to an action or change occurring to the house” Consequently, it is unclear as to what about the noun invokes the response.
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over KAZMI_466 (US20110211466)
Claim(s) 46, 66
KAZMI_466 teaches
receiving, from a network node of the wireless network, one or more configurations for UE operation in the cell; Network node sends a message to the user equipment comprising the adjusted DRX cycle length to be used, i.e. the message further comprises an instruction to change the activity level of the user equipment's radio receiver by using the adjusted DRX cycle. <FIG(s). 3; para. 0044-0048, 0051-0052>.
determining one or more of the following information associated with at least the received configurations and with UE data traffic:
UE energy efficiency (EE), and UE monitors changes in battery power consumption. The change can be associated with UE receiver activity level which implicitly include data traffic <para. 0043-0049,0053-0054>.
sending, to the network node, the determined information or one or more indications thereof. UE sends a message to the network node indicating the change of battery power consumption. <para. 0055>.
Claim(s) 47
KAZMI_466 teaches
wherein determining the UE EE information associated with each of the received configurations comprises determining one of the following for one of the configurations being used by the UE for operating in the cell:
an actual UE energy consumption based on operating current measurements during an observation period; or UE monitors changes in battery power consumption. The period in which the UE monitors can be considered an observation period. <para. 0042, 0053-0054, 0101; Claim(s) 31>.
Claim(s) 54
KAZMI_466 teaches
wherein the determined information or one or more indications thereof are sent to the network node responsive to one or more of the following:
a change in the UE data traffic; UE monitors changes in battery power consumption. The change can be associated with UE receiver activity level which implicitly include data traffic <para. 0043-0049,0053-0054>. <para. 0053-0054>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over HUANG-FU_869 (US20200322869)
Claim(s) 46, 66
HUANG-FU_869 teaches
receiving, from a network node of the wireless network, one or more configurations for UE operation in the cell; a UE receives, from a network node, Quality of Service (QoS) rule configuration in a mobile communication network for performing a QoS operation on a new QoS rule associated with a protocol data unit (PDU) session having a default QoS rule. <FIG(s). 3, 5; para. 0008, 0026, 0031>.
determining one or more of the following information associated with at least the received configurations and with UE data traffic:
quality-of-service (QoS); and A QoS operation error code is determined upon the UE detecting whether the existing QoS rule is the default QoS rule or the DQR indicator indicates that the new QoS rule becomes the default QoS rule for a PDU session which would include UE data. QoS operation error code is QoS information. <FIG(s). 5; para. 0008, 0031; Claim 10>.
sending, to the network node, the determined information or one or more indications thereof. UE transmits a QoS operation error code to the network. <FIG(s). 3, 5; para. 0008, 0026, 0031>.
Claim(s) 47, 48,
The claim recites:
wherein determining the UE EE information associated with each of the received configurations comprises…
which the above only further limits the embodiment of “determining the UE EE information” which is an alternative embodiment.
Consequently, the claim is directed to limitations that further narrow an alternative embodiment. As discussed herein, the base claim was anticipated using another embodiment (i.e., not the alternative embodiment). Consequently, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as the given for the base claim.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAZMI_466 (US20110211466) in view of BYUN_716 (US20220086716)
Claim(s) 50
KAZMI_466 does not explicitly teach
wherein the determined information or one or more indications thereof sent to the network node includes one or more of the following:
respective absolute EE ratings for the received configurations;
one absolute EE rating for a received configuration that is being used by the UE;
respective EE ratings of the received configurations relative to a reference EE rating;
respective EE differences between the received configurations and a configuration being used by the UE;
an EE difference between two of the received configurations;
actual or estimated absolute UE energy consumption for the received configurations; and
actual or estimated UE energy consumption for the received configurations, relative to a reference UE energy consumption.
However in a similar endeavor, BYUN_716 teaches
wherein the determined information or one or more indications thereof sent to the network node includes one or more of the following:
respective absolute EE ratings for the received configurations; Energy efficiency includes a representative value and/or a filtered value of each of the at least one of the link configuration <para. 0118-0119, 0138, 0151-0155; Claim(s) 7>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by KAZMI_466 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by BYUN_716. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance UE's experience by maximizing UE battery lifetime. <para. 0012>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAZMI_466 (US20110211466) in view of BYUN_716 (US20220086716), and further view of SCHNITZLER_799 (US20220417799)
Claim(s) 52
KAZMI_466 does not explicitly teach
wherein the determined information or one or more indications thereof sent to the network node also includes one or more of the following:
respective absolute QoS ratings for the received configurations;
one absolute QoS rating for a received configuration that is being used by the UE;
respective QoS differences between the received configurations and a configuration being used by the UE; and
a QoS difference between two of the received configurations.
However in a similar endeavor, SCHNITZLER_799 teaches
wherein the determined information or one or more indications thereof sent to the network node also includes one or more of the following:
respective absolute QoS ratings for the received configurations; estimated QoE value that may be reachable if the received QoS configuration may be applied. NWDAF may transmit a second response message 64, including a (e.g., range of) QoE value(s) obtained (e.g., estimated) based on the received QoS configuration of WTRU(s), <para. 0147-0148>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by KAZMI_466 and BYUN_716 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SCHNITZLER_799. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) and enable analytics services <para. 0002>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and objected to.
Claim(s) 49
The claim(s) is/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.
Closest prior art is KAZMI_466 (US20110211466) and HUANG-FU_869 (US20200322869) as discussed above in the prior art rejections but does not teach the UE determines and sends UE EE information only for the configurations having a QoS identifier and/or QoS characteristics that correspond to at least one of the following: an established data radio bearer (DRB) for the UE; and data traffic of one or more UE applications.
Claim(s) 51
The claim(s) is/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.
Closest prior art is KAZMI_466 (US20110211466) in view of BYUN_716 (US20220086716) as discussed above in the prior art rejections but does not teach reference EE ratings associated with each configuration, each reference EE ratings includes a range and the indication indicates whether actual EE rating are within the range.
In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415