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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
A statement of intended use, as the name suggests, describes a manner in which a claimed invention may be used, but does not limit the claim and need not be practiced. If the applicant wishes to limit the claims to an intended use, the claims should positively recite those features and make clear that they are limiting. Claims that use this sort of language do not clearly indicate which meaning is intended. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc. 157 F.3d 1340, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Ex parte Kearney, 2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2675 at 1 (BPAI 2012), Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
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 2, 3, 11-20, are 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 2, 3, 14 and 15, the claim language “radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment, or RRC restoration” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the antecedent basis for “the RRC reestablishment, or the RRC restoration”. The use of “or” does not specify whether these alternatives are mutually exclusive or may coexist. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claimed invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and as interpreted by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014). Applicant is advised to amend the claims to clarify the relationship between the alternatives, specify whether both types of addresses can be present, and provide clear antecedent basis to resolve the ambiguity.
Regarding claims 11, 13 and 19, a patent claim that claims both an "apparatus" and a "method" is essentially describing a device or system along with the specific steps or process used to operate it, effectively covering both the physical structure of the invention and the functional steps involved in using it. This is done by including separate claims, one defining the apparatus components and another outlining the method steps for utilizing those components. A patent claim that claims both an apparatus and the method of using that apparatus is considered a "mixed apparatus and method claim, as seen as indefinite, meaning it's unclear exactly what is being claimed and could lead to legal issues regarding infringement. The courts have held a claim term indefinite for mixing an apparatus and a method. Wireless IP Holdings, L.P., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. No. 2:18-CV-28-JRG, (E.D. Texas, Jan. 29, 2019). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011); IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
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.
Claim(s) 7-12, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2013/0322279 (Chincholi, et al).
Chincholi, et al discloses a method for implementing a sensing service (figures 18, 19), comprising sending, by a core network device (#1902), sensing indication information of a terminal (figures 1A, B, #102) to a first access network device (#1902), wherein the first access network device (#1902) is an access network device (#1902) serving the terminal (#102) and the sensing indication information is “used” for the first access network device (#1902) to determine, in a case of receiving a sensing measurement request message, a terminal (#102) “used” for executing a sensing task, wherein the sensing measurement request message is a non-terminal associated message
Regarding claim 8 the sensing indication information is used for indicating at least one of the following whether the terminal is allowed to execute a sensing task; a sensing capability of the terminal; whether a position of the terminal is fixed; or whether the terminal is a sensing measurement unit (¶95, 96, 166-169).
Regarding claim 9, Chincholi, et al shows a method for implementing a sensing service, comprising sending, by a terminal, sensing indication information to a first access network device, wherein the first access network device is an access network device serving the terminal and the sensing indication information is “used” for the first access network device to determine, in a case of receiving a sensing measurement request message, a terminal “used” for executing a sensing task, wherein the sensing measurement request message is a non-terminal associated message (figures 1A,B, 19, #114, 1902, 1908-1918, ¶95-96, 108-110, 162-169, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the sensing indication information is used for indicating at least one of the following whether the terminal is allowed to execute a sensing task; a sensing capability of the terminal; whether a position of the terminal is fixed; or whether the terminal is a sensing measurement unit (¶95, 96, 166-169).
Regarding claim 11, Chincholi, et al reveals a terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor (#118, 130, 132, ¶178).
Regarding claim 12. the sensing indication information is “used” for indicating at least one of the following whether the terminal is allowed to execute a sensing task, a sensing capability of the terminal, whether a position of the terminal is fixed; or whether the terminal is a sensing measurement unit (¶95-96,166-169).
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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 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.
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.
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) 1-4, 6,13-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2013/0322279 (Chincholi, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0230855 (Hu).
Chincholi, et al discloses a method for implementing a sensing service (¶95, 96, 108-110, 162-169) comprising obtaining, by a first access network device, sensing indication information related to a terminal, wherein the first access network device is an access network device serving the terminal (figure 19, #1902, 1904, ¶95, 162-169). Receiving, by the first access network device, a sensing measurement request message, wherein the sensing measurement request message is a non-terminal associated message (figure 21, #1902, 1908-1918, ¶162-169) and determining a terminal “used” for executing a sensing task (¶95, 96, 166-169). Chincholi, et al does not disclose determining, by the first access network device according to the sensing indication information, a terminal “used” for executing a sensing task. Hu teaches the use of determining, by the first access network device according to the sensing indication information, a terminal “used” for executing a sensing task for the purpose of detecting spectrum resource, which may avoid a detection loss for spectrum resource, note figure 2, #S207, claim 7, ¶91, 104, 121. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of determining, by the first access network device according to the sensing indication information, a terminal “used” for executing a sensing task for the purpose of detecting spectrum resource, which may avoid a detection loss for spectrum resource, as taught by Hu in the method for implementing a sensing service of Chincholi, et al in order for a base station to have a capability of detecting a target shared frequency band.
Regarding claim 2, note ¶95, 96, 162-169 in Chincholi, et al and ¶91, 104, 121, claim 7 in Hu.
Regarding claim 3, note figures 1C, 2, 4, #104c, 202, 204, Abstract, ¶3, 8-83, 86, etc., claim 5 in Chincholi, et al and ¶13, 40, 99, etc. in Hu.
Regarding claim 4, note ¶95, 96, 164-169 in Chincholi, et al and figure 1, #S105, S107, ¶9, 27, 89,91, 104, 121, claim 7 in Hu.
Regarding claim 6, note figure 14, #1405-1436, ¶142 in Chincholi, et al and #S101-109, ¶75-92 in Hu.
Regarding claim 13, note ¶178 in Chincholi, et al and ¶144-145, claim 20 in Hu.
Regarding claim 14, note figure 2, #S207, ¶91,104,121, etc. in in Hu.
Regarding claim 15, note figures 2, 4, , #202, 204, Abstract, ¶3, 82-83, etc., claim 5 in Chincholi, et al.
Regarding claim 16, note #S103, S105, S201, S203, S205, ¶74-107 in Hu.
Regarding claim 18, note #S103, S105, S201, S203, ¶74-107 in Hu.
Regarding claim 19, note ¶178 in Chincholi, et al.
Regarding claim 20, note ¶95-96, 166-169 in Chincholi, et al.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious the claimed in a case that the terminal used for executing the sensing task is in the RRC inactive state, sending, by the first access network device, a paging message only in all or a part of cells under the first access network device. In combination with a method for implementing a sensing service, comprising obtaining, by a first access network device, sensing indication information related to a terminal, wherein the first access network device is an access network device serving the terminal. Receiving, by the first access network device, a sensing measurement request message, wherein the sensing measurement request message is a non-terminal associated message; and determining, by the first access network device according to the sensing indication information, a terminal used for executing a sensing task. The sensing indication information is used for indicating at least one of the following: whether the terminal is allowed to execute a sensing task, a sensing capability of the terminal, whether a position of the terminal is fixed, or whether the terminal is a sensing measurement unit, or the terminal determined by the first access network device and used for executing the sensing task meets at least one of the following being allowed to execute the sensing task, a possessed sensing capability supporting the sensing task, being in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state, being in an RRC inactive state, having a fixed position, being a sensing measurement unit, or matching a sensing region corresponding to the sensing task.
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights