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 .
This action is in response to the filing of 3/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) is/are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the “means” (or “step”) is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for receiving signaling indicating …” “means for receiving control signaling…” “means for monitoring for a paging message …” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. [specification figures 5-8; paragraphs 117-123; paragraphs 129,131,149}
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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) 1-4, 7-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nimbalker et al. (WO 2025169123).
Regarding claims 1 and 13:
Nimbalker discloses a system and method for a user equipment (UE) (abstract; see figures), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (fig 6 [memory 610]; para 132-133); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (fig 6 [processor 602]; para 133-135; para 170) to cause the UE to:
receive signaling indicating a first paging configuration identifying a plurality of first paging frames within a paging cycle and a second paging configuration identifying a plurality of second paging frames within the paging cycle, wherein a first scheduling distribution of the plurality of first paging frames within the paging cycle differs from a second scheduling distribution of the plurality of second paging frames (para 13-14; see para 15-16, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {receiving a first paging configuration. In one embodiment, the first paging configuration is a legacy paging configuration. [0016] In one embodiment, the enhanced paging configuration is based on the first paging configuration. In one embodiment, one or more parameters of the first paging configuration may further define the enhanced paging configuration such that the paging frames and/or paging occasions defined by the first paging configuration do not overlap with the paging frames and/or paging occasions defined by the enhanced paging configuration}; figures 1-4; fig 3 [two different distributions of PFs]);
receive control signaling comprising a paging early indication that indicates the first paging configuration, the second paging configuration, or both (para 5 [PDCCH , Downlink Control Information (DCI)]; para 75-81; para 68 {The UE may determine the PO/PF to monitor, e.g. whether to monitor according to the first, second, or both configurations, based on a gNB indication. The indication from gNB may be in form of L1/L2 signaling. For example, the information can be embedded in a DCI sent in a common search space such as DO scrambled by Paging Early Indication (PEI)…}); and
monitor for a paging message in one or more paging frames based at least in part on the control signaling (para 12; para 25 {monitoring for a paging message based on the indicated number of paging frames…}; figures; para 75-80; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claims 2, 14:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein: the paging early indication indicates the second paging configuration; and the paging early indication is associated with a second radio network temporary identifier that is associated with the second paging configuration and is different than a first radio network temporary identifier that is associated with the first paging configuration (para 55,68; para 63 {the type of paging configuration, i.e., the first (legacy) paging configuration or the second paging configuration etc., is indicated in the "paging information container" so that the gNB can page the UE accordingly when the paging request is received from the core network. Such indication can simply be a bit that indicates that the UE supports the "second indication"…}; para 77 {DCI of the second configured paging may be encoded with another RNTI}; and see throughout).
Regarding claim 3, 15:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the plurality of second paging frames are indicated in the second paging configuration as one or more clusters of second paging frames of the plurality of second paging frames, the second paging frames of each cluster of the one or more clusters being consecutive in time (see figure 3 [paging frame groups PFG, are clusters consecutive in time]; para 37,89, 107; and see throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 4:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the second paging configuration indicates a quantity of the one or more clusters of second paging frames and a quantity of second paging frames in the plurality of second paging frames (para 20 { indicates a number of paging frames in a paging frame group}; para 25 {..NG is a number of paging frames in a paging frame group, T is a DRX cycle indicated in broadcast system information, N is a number of total paging frames in T…}; para 26-30; and see throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 7, 17:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the second paging configuration indicates a quantity of paging occasions comprised in one or more second paging frames of the plurality of second paging frames (para 13; para 32 {enhanced paging configuration comprises a parameter that defines a number of paging occasions within a paging frame}; para 62; figs; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 8, 18:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein: the paging early indication indicates the second paging configuration; the first paging configuration indicates a plurality of first paging occasions (para 189); and the second paging configuration indicates a plurality of second paging occasions (para 13,32,62; and throughout).
Regarding claim 9:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein monitoring for the paging message in the one or more paging frames is based at least in part on a correspondence between one or more first paging occasions of the plurality of first paging occasions and one or more second paging occasions of the plurality of second paging occasions (para 48 [UE monitors POs corresponding to the one or more of the two paging configurations]; para 55; and throughout).
Regarding claim 10:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the correspondence is based at least in part on the one or more first paging occasions and the one or more second paging occasions corresponding to an identifier of the UE (para 55 {UE monitors for paging in the monitoring occasion(s) associated with the determined PO (e.g. monitors for Paging Radio Network Temporary Identity (P-RNTI) in the paging search space, and corresponding Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH), if any) and looks for its UE ID}; para 66-68; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 11:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein monitoring for the paging message in the one or more paging frames comprises monitoring one or more of the plurality of first paging occasions, monitoring one or more of the plurality of second paging occasions, or both (para 68 {the first paging configuration can yield a first PO in a first PF and the second paging configuration can yield a second PO in a second PF. The UE may monitor both the first and second POs in a DRX cycle. The UE may determine the PO/PF to monitor, e.g. whether to monitor according to the first, second, or both configurations}; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 20:
Nimbalker discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communications (abstract; see figures), comprising:
means for receiving signaling indicating a first paging configuration identifying a plurality of first paging frames within a paging cycle and a second paging configuration identifying a plurality of second paging frames within the paging cycle, wherein a first scheduling distribution of the plurality of first paging frames within the paging cycle differs from a second scheduling distribution of the plurality of second paging frames (figure 6,10 [showing means as, processing, memory, communication interface…]; (para 13-14; see para 15-16, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {receiving a first paging configuration. In one embodiment, the first paging configuration is a legacy paging configuration. [0016] In one embodiment, the enhanced paging configuration is based on the first paging configuration. In one embodiment, one or more parameters of the first paging configuration may further define the enhanced paging configuration such that the paging frames and/or paging occasions defined by the first paging configuration do not overlap with the paging frames and/or paging occasions defined by the enhanced paging configuration …}; figures 1-4));
means for receiving control signaling comprising a paging early indication that indicates the first paging configuration, the second paging configuration, or both (para 5 [PDCCH , Downlink Control Information (DCI)]; para 75-81; para 68 {The UE may determine the PO/PF to monitor, e.g. whether to monitor according to the first, second, or both configurations, based on a gNB indication. The indication from gNB may be in form of L1/L2 signaling. For example, the information can be embedded in a DCI sent in a common search space such as DO scrambled by Paging Early Indication (PEI)…}); and
means for monitoring for a paging message in one or more paging frames based at least in part on the control signaling (para 12; para 25 {monitoring for a paging message based on the indicated number of paging frames…}; figures; para 75-80; and see throughout the disclosure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 12,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimbalker et al. (WO 2025169123) in view of Kaikkonen et al. (US 2024/0073862).
Regarding claims 12, 19:
Nimbalker discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that receive an indication to skip monitoring of a first paging occasion associated with the first paging configuration; and skip monitoring of a second paging occasion associated with the second paging configuration, wherein the first paging occasion is associated with the second paging occasion.
However, Kaikkonen in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for paging enhancement where receive an indication to skip monitoring of a first paging occasion associated with the first paging configuration; and skip monitoring of a second paging occasion associated with the second paging configuration, wherein the first paging occasion is associated with the second paging occasion (para 42 {indicate whether the UE skips the subsequent monitoring occasions}; figs; para 64,112; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Kaikkonen in Nimbalker in order to provide paging enhancement and monitor or skip monitoring of paging occasions for improvements in power saving (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,6,16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al. (US 2025/0247824) discloses a system and method for grouping paging frames and paging occasions and adapting SSB periodicity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631