DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-20, received 07 March 2024. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-20 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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claim 12 recites “transmitting a…reachability request to determine whether the inactive mode or idle mode XR UEs are reachable via paging” to indicate “transmitting new signaling….includes a list of UEs associated with the multi-modal ID… reachability request ensures the UEs are reachable to be paged” as supported by [0082] of applicant’s PG-Pub Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 14 the claims recite “informing the group of XR UEs of the multi-modal paging ID during setup of deactivated.” However, it is unclear whether the claim language is intended to claim “inform the group of XR UEs of the multi-modal paging ID during setup of a multimodal session” or inform the group of XR UEs of the multi-modal paging during setup of deactivated multi-modal session”.
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.
Claim 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15-16, 18, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20230262752 A1, hereafter referred to as Hong) in view of Kong et al (WO 2025159337 A1, hereafter referred to as Kong).
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches a method of wireless communication at an user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving an multi-modal group page (Hong [0038] teaches a paging signal, sent by a base station, to one or more terminals of a multi-modal service. Additionally, [0092] teaches monitoring paging signaling and determining that the paging signaling is the paging signaling for paging one or more terminals of the multi-modal service [0115]) associated with a group multi-modal paging identifier (ID) (Hong [0115, 0053] teaches the paging signaling carrying the ID of the multi-modal service, wherein the ID is associated with a group of terminals of the multi-modal service [0061]) for a group of UEs including the UE (Hong [0061] discloses the ID, associated with the group page [0053], is associated with a plurality of terminals associated with the multi-modal service), the group of UEs having a same multi-modal service ID (Hong [0053] teaches the paging signaling carries a same ID for the one or more terminals, wherein multiple terminals of a same multi-modal service are associated with the ID of the multi-modal service [0055]); and
transmitting an uplink message for radio resource control (RRC) setup of a deactivated multi-modal session, in response to receiving the multi-modal group page (Hong [0052, 0072] teaches setting up the RRC connection with the base station upon receiving the paging signaling, wherein the terminals are idle [0044, 0047] and perform the RRC connection to resume a service session [0078, 0080]), the deactivated multi-modal session comprising a plurality of distinct data flows for a same multi-modal service (Hong [0042-0043] teaches a plurality or inputs and outputs in multiple modalities associated with a plurality of terminals of the multi-modal service, wherein data of the multi-modal service is transmitted simultaneously [0052]).
However, Hong does not explicitly each the UE as an extended reality (XR) user equipment, the multi-modal group page as XR multimodal group page and the group as a group of XR UEs.
Kong in an analogous art, teaches the UE as an extended reality (XR) user equipment (Kong [P 17; 94] teaches an XR service transmitted through multi-modal data flows to a XR user), the multi-modal group page as XR multimodal group page (Kong [23; 148-149] teaches paging associated UEs, wherein the UEs have associated multi-modal data flows [0142]) and the group as a group of XR UEs (Kong [Pg 23; 142] teaches a group of UEs in XR service have associated multi-modal data flows).
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 Hong in view Kong in order to configure the UE, group and page, as taught by Hong, as a XR UE, group and page, as taught by Kong.
KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (the UE as taught by Hong) for another known element (the XR UE as taught by Hong) in order to yield predictable results (paging and RRC connection establishment of an idle UE to perform transmission of multi-modal service) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Hong-Kong teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Hong-Kong teaches the method further comprising receiving an indication of the group multi-modal paging ID during a packet data unit (PDU) session establishment or a PDU session modification (Kong [P 23; 150] teaches informing the base station of the multi-modal service ID in a message, wherein the message is a PDU session setup request [0154]).
Regarding claim 5, Hong teaches a method of wireless communication at a network device, comprising:
generating a multi-modal paging identifier (ID) based on a multi-modal service ID assigned to a group of extended reality (XR) user equipment (UEs) (Hong [0061] teaches the base station creating a mapping relationship associating the ID of the multi-modal service and the plurality of terminals in a group); and
initiating a group page of inactive mode or idle mode XR UEs having the multi-modal paging ID (Hong [0038-0039] teaches a paging signal sent to terminals of a multi-modal service, the paging signaling carrying the same ID for the one or more terminals [0053] sent to terminals in an RRC idle state [0044]).
However, Hong does not explicitly teach the UEs as XR UEs.
Kong, in an analogous art, teaches the UE as an extended reality (XR) user equipment (Kong [P 17; 94] teaches an XR service transmitted through multi-modal data flows to a XR user)
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 Hong in view Kong in order to configure the UE, as taught by Hong, as a XR UE, as taught by Kong.
KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (the UE as taught by Hong) for another known element (the XR UE as taught by Hong) in order to yield predictable results (paging and RRC connection establishment of an idle UE to perform transmission of multi-modal service) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Hong-Kong teaches the limitations of claim 5, as rejected above.
Additionally, Hong-Kong teaches the method further comprising informing the group of XR UEs of the multi-modal paging ID during setup of deactivated (Hong [0055] teaches the plurality of terminals in the group store an ID of the multi-modal service prior the paging monitoring moment).
Regarding claim 8, Hong-Kong teaches the limitations of claim 5, as rejected above.
Additionally, Hong-Kong teaches the method further comprising receiving a multi-modal session ID from a user plane function (UPF) in response to the UPF receiving multi-modal downlink data for a multi-modal extended reality (XR) session (Kong [Pg 23; 148] teaches the CN informing the base station of a list of UEs and a multi-modal service ID [150], responsive to identifying UEs that need synchronous data transmission [0148], wherein the CN includes a UPF entity [93]).
Regarding claim 10, Hong-Kong teaches the limitations of claim 5, as rejected above.
Additionally, Hong-Kong teaches the method further comprising initiating the group page via a multi-modal group paging message including the multi-modal paging ID (Hong [0038] teaches a paging signaling is sent to a plurality of terminals of the multi-modal service, wherein the signaling includes the ID [0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Hong-Kong teaches the limitations of claim 5, as rejected above.
Additionally, Hong-Kong teaches the method further comprising transmitting a multi-modal group reachability request to determine whether the inactive mode or idle mode XR UEs are reachable via paging (Kong [147] teaches transmitting a list of UEs associated with the multi-modal ID).
Regarding claim 13, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 5.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 7.
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claims 16, 18 and 20, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 8, 10 and 12.
Therefore, claims 16, 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 8, 10 and 12.
Claim 9, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20230262752 A1, hereafter referred to as Hong) in view of Kong et al (WO 2025159337 A1, hereafter referred to as Kong) as applied above regarding claim 5, further in view of Potharaju et al (US 20230100696 A1, hereafter referred to as Potharaju).
Regarding claim 9, Hong-Kong, teaches the limitations of claim 5, as rejected above.
Additionally, Hong-Kong teaches the method further comprising initiating the group page via a group paging request including the multi-modal paging ID (Hong [0038] teaches a paging signaling is sent to a plurality of terminals of the multi-modal service, wherein the signaling includes the ID [0053]).
However, Hong-Kong does not explicitly teach the group page via a multicast group paging request.
Potharaju, in an analogous art, teaches the group page via a multicast group paging request (Potharaju [0122, 0123, 0174] teaches multicasting the paging 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 Hong-Kong in view of Potharaju in order to configure the group page including the multi-modal paging ID, as taught by Hong-Kong, be multicast group paging request, as taught by Potharaju.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to reduce unnecessary paging updates going back and forth between the cloud and local network and reduce the time taken for the UE to transition from idle or inactive to a connected state (Potharaju [0122]).
Regarding claim 17, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 9.
Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 9.
Claim 11, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20230262752 A1, hereafter referred to as Hong) in view of Kong et al (WO 2025159337 A1, hereafter referred to as Kong) as applied above regarding claim 5, further in view of Li (US 20240349240 A1, hereafter referred to as Li).
Regarding claim 11, Hong-Kong, teaches the limitations of claim 5, as rejected above.
However, Hong-Kong does not explicitly teach the method further initiating the group page with a multi-modal XR specific radio network temporary ID (RNTI).
Li, in an analogous art, teaches the method further initiating the group page with a service specific radio network temporary ID (RNTI) (Li [0074] teaches group paging identifiers carried in the paging messages for different UE groups, corresponding to a particular service [0062-0063], are different, whereby a RNTI bound to a UE group is configured as the paging identifier and a received message is detected based on the corresponding RNTI [0080]).
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 Hong-Kong in view of Li in order to configure the group page including the multi-modal service ID, as taught by Hong-Kong, be initiated with a specific RNTI, as taught by Li.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to reduce the complexity of receiving paging messages caused by overlapping monitoring occasions of different paging messages (Li [0103]), reduce the situation UEs receive incorrect paging messages for another group due to same paging configurations (Li [0073]).
Regarding claim 19, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 11.
Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4, 7, 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (WO 2023015504 A1);
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