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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US 20190297654 in view of New US 20020006805 and Dahlen US 20110117916.
Regarding claim 1, 15, 21, Chen teaches a method of operating a first device comprising:
receiving a first data packet (fig. 1, core network, the traditional paging message is initiated by the core network, [0135]);
sending the first data packet to a second device (the indication message sent by the access device to the terminal is initiated by the RAN network side, [0135]);
and determining a state of the second device (the one or more access devices receives an uplink feedback initiated by the terminal based on the indication message, that is, the terminal in the Inactive state may perform a fast downlink data transmission, [0108]),
wherein the state is one of a first state and a second state (inactive connection state, abstract, other states, [0003]),
wherein the first device is one of a plurality of first devices (fig. 2 see multiple TRPs), wherein the plurality of first devices comprises a third device, wherein the second device (fig. 2, UE) and the first device are connected in the first state (inactive connection state, abstract),
wherein the second device performs a cell reselection process in the first state when the second device moves within coverage range of at least one of the plurality of first devices (an inactive connection state (Inactive state), in which the following behavior is allowed, The mobility is performed by the UE, and is performed by cell reselection in the area pre-configured by the network side, [0124]).
Chen is silent on wherein the second device does not perform a handover between first device and the third device in the first state
New teaches wherein the second device does not perform a handover between first device and the third device in the first state (even if the neighboring base station's signal has increased to a signal strength sufficiently greater than that of the preferred base station for a handoff to occur, the remote unit does not perform a handoff while in the inactive state, [0009]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Chen by the second device does not perform a handover between first device and the third device in the first state, as shown by New. This modification would benefit the system since adhering to industry standards will allow the system of Chen to be more easily integrated into larger systems.
The combination is silent on wherein the second device performs a handover between the first device and the third device in the second state when the second device moves within the coverage at least one of the plurality of first devices.
Dahlen teaches wherein the second device performs a handover between the first device and the third device in the second state when the second device moves within the coverage at least one of the plurality of first devices (radio mobility, which mainly consists of handover involving UEs in active state
which is also called RRC_CONNECTED state or EMM-CONNECTED state, [0008]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of the combination by the second device performs a handover between the first device and the third device in the second state when the second device moves within the coverage at least one of the plurality of first devices, as shown by Dahlen. This modification would benefit the system by enabling handover when the UE is in the active state.
Claim(s) 2, 16, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen, New, and Dahlen as applied to claims 1, 15, 21 above, and further in view of Li US 20190223151.
The combination is silent on the second device / terminal and
the first device / TRP store context information of the second device in the first state / inactive state.
Li teaches the second device and the first device store context information of the second device in the first state (fig. 2, S204, context information, inactive state, [0109, 0114]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of the combination by wherein the second device and the first device store context information of the second device in the first state, as shown by Li. This modification would benefit the system by enabling the terminal to perform cell reselection ([0114]).
Prior Art of Record
Kim US 6195551 teaches wherein the second device performs a cell reselection / handoff process in the first state when the second device moves within coverage range of at least one of the plurality of first devices (An idle handoff occurs when a mobile station such as a vehicle mounted telephone, a portable telephone, or a personal communication system handset has moved from the coverage area of one base station into the coverage area of another base station during the mobile station idle state, Col. 1 lines 11-21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 and 17-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD B ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/RONALD B ABELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476