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 .
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “based on at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) mode of the UE, the first eDRX parameter, and the second eDRX parameter”. Claim 9 similarly recites “based on at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) mode of the UE, the first eDRX parameter, and the second eDRX parameter”. Thus, each independent claim recites a limitation in the structure of ‘at least one of A, B and C’. Per MPEP 2111.01 the plain meaning of this limitation is thus established as ‘at least one of A, at least one of B and at least one of C’. However, in within the scope of the disclosure at paragraphs 8 and 35, the ‘based on’ limitation is presented as an alternative, using ‘or’ between the three claimed elements. As such, this limitation is both claim 1 and claim 9 is found to be indefinite, as the intended and actual scope of the claimed subject matter is unclear. It is suggested the inclusive ‘and’ be replaced by an alternative ‘or’ in the construction of the limitation, or that a clear explanation of the scope requiring all three elements in each calculation be stated on the record.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiaomi Communications (herein after Xi)(NPL “Discussion on e-DRX for Redcap Devices”, see IDS).
Re claim 1, Xi discloses an operating method of a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the operating method comprising:
receiving, from a core network (CN) (Fig 1 step 1 from CN to UE; Section 2.3 – CN configuration), a first extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) parameter for CN paging (Fig 1 step 1; Section 2.3 – CN e-DRX config);
receiving, from a base station (BS) (Fig 1 step 3 from gNB to UE; Section 2.3 – Ran configuration), a second eDRX parameter for radio access network (RAN) paging (Fig 1 step 3; Section 2.3 – Ran e-DRX config);
determining a cycle (Section 203 – adopting common PTW; Fig 1 monitor within PTW; Proposal 3 -common PTW), based on at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) mode of the UE (Section 2.3; Proposal 3; -UE in RRC idle, RRC inactive), the first eDRX parameter (Fig 1 step 1; Section 2.3 – CN e-DRX config; Proposal 3), and the second eDRX parameter (Fig 1 step 3; Section 2.3 – Ran e-DRX config; Proposal 3); and
monitoring paging, based on the cycle (Section 2.3; Fig 1 -monitoring within the PTW; Proposal 3- common PTW).
Re claim 2, Xi discloses the operating method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first eDRX parameter is received from the CN by non-access stratum (NAS) signaling (Section 2.2, 2.3 – provided to the UE via NAS signaling).
Re claim 3, Xi discloses the operating method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first eDRX parameter comprises at least one of an eDRX cycle (TeDRXCN) for CN paging (Section 2.3 – e-DRX cycle; Fig 1 step 1; Note 1) or a length (LCN) of a first paging time window (PTW) (Section 2.3 – PTW; Fig 1 step 1; Note 1).
Re claim 4, Xi discloses the operating method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second eDRX parameter is received by RRC signaling from the BS (Section 2.1, 2.3- RAN signaling and indication of RRC status; Proposal 3).
Re claim 5, Xi discloses the operating method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second eDRX parameter comprises at least one of an eDRX cycle (TeDRXRAN) for RAN paging (Section 2.3 – e-DRX cycle; Fig 1 step 3) or a length (LRAN) of a second paging time window (PTW) (Section 2.3 – PTW; Fig 1 step 3).
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.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiaomi Communications (herein after Xi)(NPL “Discussion on e-DRX for Redcap Devices”, see IDS) in view of Vogedes (herein after Vo)(US Pub 20230199902).
Re claim 9, Xi discloses a user equipment (UE) operating in a wireless communication system, the UE configured to:
receive, from a core network (CN) (Fig 1 step 1 from CN to UE; Section 2.3 – CN configuration), a first extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) parameter for CN paging (Fig 1 step 1; Section 2.3 – CN e-DRX config);
receive, from a base station (BS) (Fig 1 step 3 from gNB to UE; Section 2.3 – Ran configuration), a second eDRX parameter for radio access network (RAN) paging (Fig 1 step 3; Section 2.3 – Ran e-DRX config);
determine a cycle (Section 203 – adopting common PTW; Fig 1 monitor within PTW; Proposal 3 -common PTW), based on at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) mode of the UE (Section 2.3; Proposal 3; -UE in RRC idle, RRC inactive), the first eDRX parameter (Fig 1 step 1; Section 2.3 – CN e-DRX config; Proposal 3), and the second eDRX parameter (Fig 1 step 3; Section 2.3 – Ran e-DRX config; Proposal 3); and
monitor paging, based on the cycle (Section 2.3; Fig 1 -monitoring within the PTW; Proposal 3- common PTW); however, Xi fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the UE comprises: a transceiver; and a processor coupled with the transceiver; and (2) wherein the receiving is performed via the transceiver.
Regarding items (1) an (2) above, this design is however disclosed by Vo. Vo discloses (1) wherein the UE (Fig 18F; Par 234-235) comprises: a transceiver (Fig 18F el 120; Par 234-235); and a processor (Fig 18F el 118; Par 234-235) coupled with the transceiver (Fig 18F connection between 118 and 120; Par 234-235); and (2) wherein the receiving is performed via the transceiver (Fig 18F; Par 234-235, 238; Fig 14 showing UE communication with both gNB and AMF components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Xi in order to incorporate the device embodiment of Vo based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve designs in the same way, in this instance it is commonplace and understood to implement communication methods through processor and memory based components to carry out the required communication processing while incorporating a transceiver to allow for two way communication from the design, the device embodiment allowing for interaction and compatibility with other devices in the environment while the transceiver allows for improved dynamic communication as the device can support both Tx and RX communications to improve quality and connectivity in a communication environment.
Re claim 10, the combined disclosure of Xi and Vo as a whole discloses the UE of claim 9, Xi further discloses wherein the first eDRX parameter is received from the CN by non-access stratum (NAS) signaling (Section 2.2, 2.3 – provided to the UE via NAS signaling).
Re claim 11, the combined disclosure of Xi and Vo as a whole discloses the UE of claim 9, Xi further discloses wherein the first eDRX parameter comprises at least one of an eDRX cycle (TeDRXCN) for CN paging (Section 2.3 – e-DRX cycle; Fig 1 step 1; Note 1) or a length (LCN) of a first paging time window (PTW) (Section 2.3 – PTW; Fig 1 step 1; Note 1).
Re claim 12, the combined disclosure of Xi and Vo as a whole discloses the UE of claim 9, Xi further discloses wherein the second eDRX parameter is received via the transceiver (Shown in detail in Vo, Fig 1 of Xi further shows Tx/Rx from UE) by RRC signaling from the BS (Section 2.1, 2.3- RAN signaling and indication of RRC status; Proposal 3).
Re claim 13, the combined disclosure of Xi and Vo as a whole discloses the UE of claim 9, Xi further discloses wherein the second eDRX parameter comprises at least one of an eDRX cycle (TeDRXRAN) for RAN paging (Section 2.3 – e-DRX cycle; Fig 1 step 3) or a length (LRAN) of a second paging time window (PTW) (Section 2.3 – PTW; Fig 1 step 3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oppo (NPL “Discussion on eDRX for RedCap UEs”, see IDS).
Re claim 8, Xi discloses the operating method of claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein a slot frame number (PTW_CN_start) at which a first PTW associated with CN paging starts and a slot frame number (PTW_RAN_start) at which a second PTW associated with RAN paging starts are configured to be the same.
This design is however disclosed by Oppo. Oppo discloses wherein a slot frame number (PTW_CN_start) at which a first PTW associated with CN paging starts (Section 1 – agreements, PO consideration; Section 2.1, Proposal 2 – common PTW starting point; Section 2.3 PO factor in starting considerations) and a slot frame number (PTW_RAN_start) at which a second PTW associated with RAN paging starts are configured to be the same (Section 1 – agreements, PO consideration; Section 2.1, Proposal 2 – common PTW starting point; Section 2.3 PO factor in starting considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Xi in order to incorporate the PTW timing of Oppo based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve designs in the same way, in this instance by using a common PTW starting point allows for the most amount of PTW overlap thereby improving the power saving capabilities of the design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 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 fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 6 and 14 the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the specified processing for frame monitoring determinations. Re claims 7 and 15 the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the specified processing for frame monitoring determinations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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 at (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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights