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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 12/21/2023 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 5, 11, 13 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Independent Claim 1
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Lunden (US-20150098379).
As to claim 1: Lunden teaches a communication apparatus comprising: a control unit configuring a configuration value related to a discontinuous reception (DRX) operation in a terminal apparatus depending on a state of the terminal apparatus (abstract applying, at a user equipment having dual connectivity to a first wireless access point and a second wireless access point, a first discontinuous receive cycle pattern in a second cell served by the second wireless access point; [0017] the first, macro base station's DRX may depend on the activity in the small cell) configured to perform wireless communication by both a first communication scheme and a second communication scheme ([0021] dual connectivity); and a transmission transmitting the configuration value to a base station apparatus or the terminal apparatus ([0020] The longer or shorter DRX cycle times may, in some example embodiments, be signaled to the user equipment by the network, specified in a standard, and/or provided in any other way), wherein the control unit configures, in a case that the terminal apparatus is in a first state, the configuration value to a first value for the first communication scheme and the second communication scheme, such that the first communication scheme and the second communication scheme come into an active state at temporally different timings with regard to the DRX operation ([0006] The first discontinuous receive cycle pattern may be about a 40 millisecond cycle, and the second discontinuous receive cycle pattern may be about a 160 millisecond cycle; [0015, 17, 18] user equipment may be in a long DRX in the macro cell but in a non-DRX mode or Active Time actively receiving/transmitting data as well as making measurements in the small cell).
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.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379) in view of Koc (US-20150195867).
As to claim 2: Lunden teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein in a case that the terminal apparatus is in a second state different from the first state, the control unit configures the configuration value to a second value different from the first value for the first communication scheme and the second communication scheme, such that the first communication scheme and the second communication scheme come into the active state temporally in parallel with regard to the DRX operation. However, Koc teaches wherein in a case that the terminal apparatus is in a second state different from the first state (abstract if the UE is in a DRX sleep state with respect to one cell but is in a DRX active state with respect to the other), the control unit configures the configuration value to a second value different from the first value for the first communication scheme and the second communication scheme ([0021, 27, 32, 43] select separate sets of small cell, macro cell DRX parameters for UE for first and second data connections), such that the first communication scheme and the second communication scheme come into the active state temporally in parallel with regard to the DRX operation ([0027, 32]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement parallel active states, taught by Koc, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and increase data throughput. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Koc and Lunden in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379), Koc (US-20150195867) in view of Wei (WO-2019096946-A1).
As to claim 19: Lunden teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 2.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein the transmission unit transmits, to the terminal apparatus, information indicating that the communication apparatus is configured to support the first state and the second state together with broadcast information. However, Wei teaches wherein the transmission unit transmits, to the terminal apparatus, information indicating that the communication apparatus is configured to support the first state and the second state together with broadcast information (abstract, 7:25-27).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determine configuration, taught by Wei, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable connection establishment between UE and BS. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lunden and Wei in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379), Koc (US-20150195867) in view of Fakoorian (US-20210051634).
As to claim 3: Lunden teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 2.
Lunden may not explicitly teach further comprising: a reception unit configured to receive information on the state of the terminal apparatus from the terminal apparatus, wherein: the first state is a state where the terminal apparatus is performing or is scheduled to perform an application for Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communication (URLLC), and the second state is a state where the terminal apparatus is performing or is scheduled to perform an application for enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB). However, Fakoorian teaches further comprising: a reception unit configured to receive information on the state of the terminal apparatus from the terminal apparatus ([0072] The base station 402, which may be one implementation of the base station 102 of FIG. 1, may include an RRC that defines and configures multiple downlink SPS configurations and multiple Type 2 uplink CG configurations), wherein: the first state is a state where the terminal apparatus is performing or is scheduled to perform an application for Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communication (URLLC) ([0072] different SPS configurations may be used for different service types (e.g., URLLC, eMMB, MMTC, and so on)), and the second state is a state where the terminal apparatus is performing or is scheduled to perform an application for enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) ([0072] different SPS configurations may be used for different service types (e.g., URLLC, eMMB, MMTC, and so on)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement URLLC, eMMB, taught by Fakoorian, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and have flexibility in communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian and Lunden in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379) in view of Liu (US-20200120750).
As to claim 6: Lunden teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein the first communication scheme is New Radio (NR) and the second communication scheme is Long Term Evolution (LTE). However, Liu teaches wherein the first communication scheme is New Radio (NR) and the second communication scheme is Long Term Evolution (LTE) ([0021] LTE-NR dual connectivity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement LTE / NR, taught by Liu, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and allow interoperability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Liu and Lunden in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379) in view of Choi (CN-106060912-A).
As to claim 20: Lunden teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Lunden may not explicity teach wherein: the transmission unit transmits the configuration value to the base station apparatus, and the communication apparatus is a core network apparatus. However, Choi teaches wherein: the transmission unit transmits the configuration value to the base station apparatus, and the communication apparatus is a core network apparatus (the eNodeB 102 (or RNC of the UMTS system 3GPP) receives an extended call DRX cycle value from the MME 101 (or SGSN 3GPP UMTS system)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement core node DRX control, taught by Choi, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and centralization of control. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lunden and Choi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379) in view of Koc (US-20150195867).
As to claim 21: Lunden teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein: the transmission unit transmits the configuration value to the terminal apparatus, and the communication apparatus is a base station apparatus. However, Koc teaches wherein: the transmission unit transmits the configuration value to the terminal apparatus, and the communication apparatus is a base station apparatus ([0034] MeNB 102 may use RRC configuration information message 228 to configure UE 110 with the set of macro cell DRX parameters that it has selected for UE 110 and the set of small cell DRX parameters that SeNB 104 has selected for UE 110).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement BS control of DRX, taught by Koc, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and direct control of UE by BS. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Koc and Lunden in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Independent Claim 7
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Lunden (US-20150098379).
As to claim 7: Lunden teaches a terminal apparatus comprising: a first communication unit configured to perform wireless communication by a first communication scheme; a second communication unit configured to perform wireless communication by a second communication scheme; and a control unit configured to: perform a discontinuous reception (DRX) operation in a first mode (abstract applying, at a user equipment having dual connectivity to a first wireless access point and a second wireless access point, a first discontinuous receive cycle pattern in a second cell served by the second wireless access point; [0017] the first, macro base station's DRX may depend on the activity in the small cell), bring the first communication unit and the second communication unit into an active state at temporally different timings in the first mode with regard to the DRX operation ([0006] The first discontinuous receive cycle pattern may be about a 40 millisecond cycle, and the second discontinuous receive cycle pattern may be about a 160 millisecond cycle; [0015, 17, 18] user equipment may be in a long DRX in the macro cell but in a non-DRX mode or Active Time actively receiving/transmitting data as well as making measurements in the small cell).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379) in view of Koc (US-20150195867).
As to claim 8: Lunden teaches the terminal apparatus according to claim 7.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is further configured to: perform the DRX operation in a second mode different from the first mode, and the control unit brings bring the first communication unit and the second communication unit into the active state temporally in parallel in the second mode with regard to the DRX operation. However, Koc teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to: perform the DRX operation in a second mode different from the first mode (abstract if the UE is in a DRX sleep state with respect to one cell but is in a DRX active state with respect to the other), and the control unit brings bring the first communication unit and the second communication unit into the active state temporally in parallel in the second mode with regard to the DRX operation ([0021, 27, 32, 43] select separate sets of small cell, macro cell DRX parameters for UE for first and second data connections).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement parallel active states, taught by Koc, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and increase data throughput. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Koc and Lunden in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379), Koc (US-20150195867) in view of Hoglund (WO-2019032012-A1).
As to claim 9: Lunden teaches the terminal apparatus according to claim 8.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first communication unit and/or the second communication unit receives, from a base station apparatus, information on whether to operate in the first mode or the second mode with regard to the DRX. However, Hoglund teaches wherein at least one of the first communication unit and/or the second communication unit receives, from a base station apparatus, information on whether to operate in the first mode or the second mode with regard to the DRX (2:24-3:4 receiving, during a first time window, a signal from a network node operable in the wireless communications network, wherein the signal comprises either: an indication that at least one of a plurality of paging occasions will be used for the transmission of paging information; or an indication that none of the plurality of paging occasions will be used for the transmission of paging information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement adjusting DRX mode, taught by Hoglund, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable adaptation to network conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lunden and Hoglund in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379), Koc (US-20150195867) in view of Fakoorian (US-20210051634).
As to claim 10: Lunden teaches the terminal apparatus according to claim 8.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein: at least one of the first communication unit or the second communication unit is configured to transmit, to a base station apparatus, information on whether the terminal apparatus is in a first state or a second state, the first state is a state where the terminal apparatus is performing or is scheduled to perform an application for Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communication (URLLC), and the second state is a state where the terminal apparatus is performing or is scheduled to perform an application for enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMMB). However, Fakoorian teaches wherein: at least one of the first communication unit or the second communication unit is configured to transmit, to a base station apparatus, information on whether the terminal apparatus is in a first state or a second state ([0072] The base station 402, which may be one implementation of the base station 102 of FIG. 1, may include an RRC that defines and configures multiple downlink SPS configurations and multiple Type 2 uplink CG configurations), the first state is a state where the terminal apparatus is performing or is scheduled to perform an application for Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communication (URLLC) ([0072] different SPS configurations may be used for different service types (e.g., URLLC, eMMB, MMTC, and so on)), and the second state is a state where the terminal apparatus is performing or is scheduled to perform an application for enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMMB) ([0072] different SPS configurations may be used for different service types (e.g., URLLC, eMMB, MMTC, and so on)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement URLLC, eMMB, taught by Fakoorian, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and have flexibility in communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian and Lunden in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379), Koc (US-20150195867), Fakoorian (US-20210051634) in view of Wei (WO-2019096946-A1).
As to claim 12: Lunden teaches the terminal apparatus according to claim 10.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein the at least one of the first communication unit or the second communication unit is further configured to receive information indicating that the base station apparatus is configured to support the first state and the second state together with broadcast information. However, Wei teaches wherein the at least one of the first communication unit or the second communication unit is further configured to receive information indicating that the base station apparatus is configured to support the first state and the second state together with broadcast information (abstract, 7:25-27).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determine configuration, taught by Wei, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable connection establishment between UE and BS. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lunden and Wei in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunden (US-20150098379) in view of Liu (US-20200120750).
As to claim 14: Lunden teaches the terminal apparatus according to claim 7.
Lunden may not explicitly teach wherein the first communication scheme is New Radio (NR) and the second communication scheme is Long Term Evolution (LTE). However, Liu teaches wherein the first communication scheme is New Radio (NR) and the second communication scheme is Long Term Evolution (LTE) ([0021] LTE-NR dual connectivity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement LTE / NR, taught by Liu, into the DRX, taught by Lunden, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and allow interoperability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Liu and Lunden in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights