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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-02-10 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as outlined below:
Applicant alleges that “in amended claim 11, it is an apparatus rather than a RAN node that determines whether the WTRU is authorized to operate in the REDCAP mode based upon the subscription information received from the network function. For example, the ‘apparatus’ claimed in amended claim 11 comprises an access and mobility function (AMF) as recited in claim 32” (Remarks, p. 6, emphasis in original). However, examiner notes that the apparatus of the independent claims is not restricted to an AMF; rather, the apparatus of the independent claims is broad and may include AMF as well as any other applicable network apparatus, such as Ohlsson’s CN Node 130 – which may be “any one or more out of an AMF node, SMF node, UDM or an UPF node or any other suitable node” (Ohlsson, ¶0053) etc.
Applicant also alleges that neither Ohlsson nor Lyazidi teaches or suggests that the apparatus is selected by a network based on the indication (Remarks, pp. 6-7). Based on a review of the applied and previously cited references and a thorough search in the art, examiner acknowledges that, were the apparatus of the independent claims limited to an AMF, this would be true (please see section Allowable Subject Matter in this Office Action). However, the apparatus of the independent claims is broad and may include AMF as well as any other applicable network apparatus, such as Ohlsson’s CN Node 130, which may be SMF (please see Ohlsson, ¶0053); and Lyazidi teaches that a SMF may be selected based on indication that a wireless device is in REDCAP mode. Thus, the combination of Ohlsson and Lyazidi teaches wherein the apparatus is selected by a network based on the indication (please see section Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 in this Office Action).
For these reasons, the rejections are maintained in view of a different interpretation – necessitated by the amendments – of the previously applied references, as presented in this Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 33 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.
Specifically, claims 32 and 33 limit the “apparatus” of the independent claims to an access and mobility function (AMF). This limitation overcomes the combination of Ohlsson and Lyazidi, as neither Ohlsson nor Lyazidi, nor their combination, teach or suggest: An access and mobility function (AMF) comprising: a non-transitory memory including instructions stored thereon; and a processor, operably coupled to the non-transitory memory, configured to execute the instructions of: receiving an indication of a wireless transmit/receive unit (WRTU) operating in a reduced capacity (REDCAP) mode, wherein the AMF is selected by a network based on the indication; sending, to a network function in a core network, a message requesting subscription information of the WTRU; receiving, from the network function, the subscription information of the WTRU; determining whether the WTRU is authorized to operated in the REDCAP mode based upon the received subscription information; sending a first indication based on the determined authorization for the WTRU to operate in the REDCAP mode; and sending a second indication based on the determined authorization to an SMF, wherein the second indication indicates the WTRU is operating in the REDCAP mode.
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 11, 12, 15, and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0362787 to Ohlsson et al. (“Ohlsson”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0187843 to Lyazidi et al. (“Lyazidi”).
As to claim 25 (and similarly applied to claim 11), Ohlsson discloses an apparatus (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, CN Node 130 (represented as AMF in Fig. 4); ¶¶0087-0089; please also refer to Figs. 8a-b, CN node/apparatus 130; please also see ¶0053, CN Node 130 may be "any one or more out of an AMF node, SMF node, UDM or an UPF node or any other suitable node") comprising: a non-transitory memory including instructions stored thereon (Ohlsson, Figs. 4 and 8a-b, Memory; ¶¶0160-0161); and a processor, operably coupled to the non-transitory memory (Ohlsson, Figs. 4 and 8a-b, Processor; ¶¶0159-0164), configured to execute the instructions of: receiving an indication of a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) operating in a reduced capacity (REDCAP) mode (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, action 401; ¶¶0090-0098); sending, to a network function in a core network, a message requesting subscription information of the WTRU; receiving, from the network function, the subscription information of the WTRU (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, action 402; ¶¶0101-0102; please note ¶0102, "The AMF, such as the CN node 130, checks, also referred to as determines, whether the UE 120 is authorized to use reduced capabilities based on subscriber profile. The subscriber profile may be retrieved from a Unified Data Management (UDM), e.g. comprised in the 5G CN"); determining whether the WTRU is authorized to operate in the REDCAP mode based upon the received subscription information (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, action 402; ¶¶0101-0102); sending a first indication based on the determined authorization for the WTRU to operate in the REDCAP mode (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, action 403; ¶¶0103-0108).
Ohlsson does not disclose: wherein the apparatus is selected by a network based on the indication; and sending a second indication based on the determined authorization to an SMF, wherein the second indication indicates the WTRU is operating in the REDCAP mode.
However, Lyazidi discloses: wherein the apparatus is selected by a network based on the indication (Lyazidi, ¶¶0056-0059, RedCap indication may be used for slice selection, i.e., selecting a serving base station by the network based on indication of UE in RedCap mode; please also see ¶0143 and ¶0105, "the core network node selects a Session Management Function (SMF) based on the indication that the wireless device is a reduced capability device"); and sending a second indication based on the determined authorization to an SMF, wherein the second indication indicates the WTRU is operating in the REDCAP mode (¶¶0056-0059; AMF receives REDCAP indication from UE and sends the information to other functions in the core network, e.g., SMF).
Ohlsson and Lyazidi are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: access point restriction, network selection, and access point selection, e.g. selecting a network or a communication service or selecting a data network point of attachment (PoA); transfer of terminal data; and/or reducing energy consumption in wireless communication networks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohlsson to incorporate the teachings of Lyazidi to include: wherein the apparatus is selected by a network based on the indication; and sending a second indication based on the determined authorization to an SMF, wherein the second indication indicates the WTRU is operating in the REDCAP mode. Doing so would "improve the speed and efficiency of system access by a wireless device, and thus will indirectly improve the operation and efficiency of the wireless device's operation with respect to user-driven applications, whether those applications are voice, video, or data-based applications or services" (Lyazidi, ¶0120).
As to claim 26 (and similarly applied to claim 21), Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi discloses the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the determination is further based upon the core network supporting the REDCAP mode (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, action 402; ¶¶0101-0102; see also action 403 and ¶¶0103-0108).
As to claim 22, Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: selecting a network slice for the WTRU dedicated for supporting REDCAP mode; and sending the network slice to the WTRU (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, action 402; ¶¶0101-0102; see also action 403 and ¶¶0103-0108).
As to claim 27, Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi discloses the apparatus of claim 25, further comprising: selecting a network slice for the WTRU dedicated for supporting REDCAP mode (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, action 402; ¶¶0101-0102; see also action 403 and ¶¶0103-0108).
As to claim 28 (and similarly applied to claim 23), Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi discloses the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the first sent indication is to another network function in the core network (Lyazidi, ¶¶0056-0060; AMF receives REDCAP indication from UE and sends the information to other functions in the core network, e.g., SMF, PCF, CHF, NEF, NWDAF).
As to claim 29 (and similarly applied to claim 24), Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi discloses the apparatus of claim 28, wherein the first sent indication prompts a determination of characteristics of a protocol data unit (PDU) session with the WTRU (Lyazidi, ¶¶0100-0101 and proposed specification on pp. 26-30 and pp. 32-35).
As to claim 30 (and similarly applied to claim 12), Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi discloses the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the first sent indication includes the WTRU being authorized to operate in the REDCAP mode (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, action 403; ¶¶0103-0108).
As to claim 31 (and similarly applied to claim 15), Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi discloses the apparatus of claim 25, further comprising: receiving a capability information message including any one or more of an indication of a number of WTRUs, a receiving/transmitting antenna, a reduced supported bandwidth, a support for half-duplex-FDD, a relaxed WTRU processing time, or a relaxed WTRU processing capability (Ohlsson, Fig. 4, step 401, and ¶¶0091-0098; and Lyazidi, ¶¶0064-0068).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0205121 to Yang.
As to claim 13, Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi discloses the method of claim 11.
Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi does not disclose: further comprising: receiving a non-access stratum message indicating a trajectory or stationary state.
However, Yang discloses: further comprising: receiving a non-access stratum message indicating a trajectory or stationary state (Fig. 1, step 111; ¶¶0061-0063).
Ohlsson, Lyazidi, and Yang are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: access point restriction, network selection, and access point selection, e.g. selecting a network or a communication service or selecting a data network point of attachment (PoA); transfer of terminal data; and/or reducing energy consumption in wireless communication networks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohlsson in view of Lyazidi to incorporate the teachings of Yang to include: further comprising: receiving a non-access stratum message indicating a trajectory or stationary state. Doing so would "enable a core network node, for example, a Mobility Management Entity (MME), an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), etc., to configure differentiated paging policies based at least in part on mobility information of UEs" (Yang, ¶0057), which would provide the following benefits: "significantly decrease the paging load for a network…network resource efficiency may be improved both on radio interface and on RAN entities…power saving for both stationary and mobile terminal devices…longer battery life time can be obtained" (Yang, ¶0058).
References Cited
Lyazidi, Mohammed Yazid et al. (2024). Methods for indicating reduced capability ue information (US 20240187843 A1). Filed 2022-03-31.
Ohlsson, Oscar et al. (2023). Apparatus and method in a radio communications network (US 20230362787 A1). Filed 2021-03-17.
Yang, Bo (2020). Paging in a communication network (US 20200205121 A1). Filed 2017-12-29.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chen, Qian et al. (2024). Extended discontinuous reception differentiation for new radio (nr) (US 20240187990 A1). Filed 2022-03-31.
Duan, Weimin et al. (2021). Low-tier user equipment positioning with premium user equipment assistance (US 20210099832 A1). Filed 2020-09-30.
Gao, Yuan et al. (2024). Slice aware cell selection and random access techniques (US 20240023168 A1). Filed 2023-09-22.
Höglund, Andreas et al. (2025). Methods and devices for reducing ue energy consumption (US 12477465 B2). Filed 2021-02-12.
Ianev, Iskren et al. (2022). Ue, core network node, and control method for handling multiple user identities per ue (US 20220264504 A1). Filed 2020-06-25.
Jung, Hyejung et al. (2023). Network access request based on user equipment capabilities (US 20230328575 A1). Filed 2021-09-06.
Khlass, Ahlem et al. (2022). Temporary identification for a terminal device (US 20220312187 A1). Filed 2021-03-26.
Maamari, Diana et al. (2024). Method and apparatus for identification of redcap ues (US 20240090018 A1). Filed 2023-06-07.
Pan, Qi et al. (2023). Communication method and communication apparatus (US 20230413039 A1). Filed 2023-09-06.
Sha, Tong et al. (2023). Communication method and apparatus (US 20230345232 A1). Filed 2023-06-28.
Stubblefield, Stacy Lyn (2024). Verifying subscriber information for device-based authentication (US 20240422162 A1). Filed 2024-07-29.
Tsai, HSIN-HSI et al. (2023). User equipment and method for power saving (US 20230209462 A1). Filed 2021-05-27.
Turtinen, Samuli Heikki et al. (2022). Redcap ue identification (US 20220312530 A1). Filed 2021-03-24.
Velev, Genadi et al. (2023). Releasing user plane resources of a data connection (US 20230292399 A1). Filed 2021-07-23.
Wu, Chih-Hsiang (2024). Managing different types of communication devices (US 20240022897 A1). Filed 2021-09-16.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights