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 .
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 (Figs. 5 and 8a-b, CN node 130; ¶0111 and ¶0156) comprising: a non-transitory memory including instructions stored thereon (Figs. 5 and 8a-b, Memory; ¶¶0160-0161); and a processor, operably coupled to the non-transitory memory (Figs. 5 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 (Fig. 5, actions 501-505; ¶¶0112-0114); sending, to a network function in a core network, a message requesting subscription information of the WTRU (Fig. 5, action 506; ¶¶0115-0117); receiving, from the network function, the subscription information of the WTRU (Fig. 5, action 507; ¶¶0118-0119); determining whether the WTRU is authorized to operate in the REDCAP mode based upon the received subscription information (Fig. 5, action 509; ¶¶0120-0126); sending a first indication based on the determined authorization for the WTRU to operate in the REDCAP mode (Fig. 5, action 510; ¶¶0127-0128).
Ohlsson does not disclose: 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: 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: 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. 5, action 509; ¶¶0120-0125).
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. 5, actions 509-510; ¶¶0120-0128, ¶0072, and ¶0102).
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. 5, actions 509-510; ¶¶0120-0128, ¶0072, and ¶0102).
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. 5, action 510; ¶¶0127-0128).
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, ¶¶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
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, applicant may 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