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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, 21-27, 29-35 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.
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) 1-2, 12, 21-27, 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (WO 2023/022643) in view of 3gpp Meeting #115 (Mar 3 2022), provided by Applicant.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 12, 21-28, 30-35 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nayak (WO 2023/022643).
Regarding claim 1, Nayak discloses a method for wireless communications (abstract), the method comprising: storing by a first communication node (secondary node, page 3, SN collects user history information), an extra time value in a history information of a user device (UHI information) in response to a dwelling time that the user device stays in a cell exceeding a predetermined upper time value, wherein the extra time value indicates an amount of time over the predetermined upper time value that the user device stays in the cell (page 4; time UE stayed in cell exceeds the predetermined range, also pages 13 and 16, options B and D discloses how to denote the extra time spent in a cell) ; and transmitting by the first communication node, the history information including the extra time value to a second communication node (page 3, the secondary node transmits the UHI information to the master node, i.e. – second node). Nayak fails to disclose that the history information includes the upper time value, the extra time value, and only a single instance of a cell identification (ID) of the cell.
However, 3gpp teaches in an analogous art, the use of history information that includes all 3 values (section 2.2, time spent without SCG). In particular, 3gpp teaches a single cell id (PCell), a stay time (upper time value) and the extra time value (Time stamp/stay time showing the extra time beyond the upper limit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the 3 items in the history information in order to determine a ping pong issue, as taught by 3gpp.
Regarding claim 26, Nayak discloses a wireless communication apparatus a (Figures 6 or 7, MN or SN) comprising a memory storing a plurality of instructions (page 24 – 606 or page 25, 707) and at least one processor (601 or 701) configured to execute the plurality of instructions, wherein upon execution of the plurality of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the wireless communications apparatus to: store an extra time value in a history information of a user device (UHI information) in response to a dwelling time that the user device stays in a cell exceeding a predetermined upper time value, wherein the extra time value indicates an amount of time over the predetermined upper time value that the user device stays in the cell (page 4; time UE stayed in cell exceeds the predetermined range, also pages 13 and 16, options B and D discloses how to denote the extra time spent in a cell) ; and transmit the history information including the extra time value to a communication node (page 3, the secondary node transmits the UHI information to the master node, i.e. – second node). Nayak fails to disclose that the history information includes the upper time value, the extra time value, and only a single instance of a cell identification (ID) of the cell.
However, 3gpp teaches in an analogous art, the use of history information that includes all 3 values (section 2.2, time spent without SCG). In particular, 3gpp teaches a single cell id (PCell), a stay time (upper time value) and the extra time value (Time stamp/stay time showing the extra time beyond the upper limit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the 3 items in the history information in order to determine a ping pong issue, as taught by 3gpp.
Regarding claims 2 and 27, Nayak disclose that the predetermined upper time value is 4095 seconds (pages 13 or 16, time stayed maximum value is 4095 seconds) and the history information also indicates the predetermined upper time value corresponding to the cell (Page 16 – the dwell time is listed as corresponding to a particular PCell ID).
Regarding claim 12 and 30, Nayak discloses the first node is a secondary note and the second communication node is a master node (page 3, MN master node and SN secondary node description).
Regarding claims 21-22, 31-32, Nayak discloses that the history information comprises secondary group cell user equipment history information (Pages 10 and 11, use of SN release time to denote secondary cell group in options B/D) and the use of user history information (page 3- UHI is user history information as well as page 8, discussion of SN UHI) and one or more entries that indicate the extra time value (Page 16 – optional time stamp and actual time in cell are used to denote extra time).
Regarding claim 23, 25, 33, 35, Nayak discloses the sum of extra time value and the predetermined upper time value indicate the dwelling time (page 16 – actual time in cell is the total of the extra time and predetermined maximum). Nayak also disclose the cell comprises a primary secondary cell (page 8, PSCell list – primary secondary cell listing).
Regarding claim 24 and 34, Nayak discloses that eh extra time value and the predetermined upper time value are indicated by consecutive entries in the history information (Page 14, Option C – repeating entries to denote the extra time after hitting the upper time value of 4095, note consecutive history entries in PCell B).
Claim(s) 11 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak and 3gpp as applied to claim 1 and 26 above, and further in view of Bevins (WO 2022/079635).
Regarding claims 11 and 29, the combination of Nayak and 3gpp discloses all the particulars of the claim except for the extra time value being included in at least one of: a secondary node modification required, secondary node modification request acknowledge, secondary node change required, secondary note release acknowledge, or secondary release required message. However, Bevins teaches in an analogous art, the use of mobile history information in a dual connectivity setup, wherein the mobility history information (similar to the UHI information of Nayak) is included in secondary node change, modification, or removal operations, i.e. – secondary node signaling – see claim 2 as well as para 31-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include secondary cell messages to transmit history information as taught by Bevins, to the system of Nayak and 3gpp in order to increase the accuracy of the control signaling relating to the secondary cell dwell time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi (2013/0322409) discloses the use of dwell time in PCell and SCell with respect to wireless networks.
Parichehrehteroujeni (2024/0080652) discloses the use of MHI data with cell id and mobility history as well as dwell time and PLMN id in a wireless network.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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 GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights