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 .
Response to Arguments
Arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 10-12, 14, 20, 21, 24, 26-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu (US 20230362889 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for group paging, performed by a base station, comprising: sending a paging early indication (fig. 5 540); wherein an indication of whether a type of the PEI is a first type of PEI or a second type of PEI is carried by downlink control information (paragraph 55 DCI pertains to group or subgroup, paragraph 60 DCI indicating PEI, paragraph 62 PEI associated with different classes of UE), and the DCIs corresponding to the first type of PEI and the second type of PEI are different (paragraph 60 PEI associated with DCI; paragraph 62 PEI associated with different types of terminals), wherein for the first type of PEI, its DCI format carries one bit or one code point (paragraph 55 DCI is digital information and would therefore carry at least one bit); or an indication of whether the type of the PEI is the first type of PEI or the second type of PEI is carried by a system message sent by the base station (paragraph 60 DCI indicates PEI); wherein the first type of PEI is a PEI without indicating paging sub-grouping (paragraph 55 relates to group), and the second type of PEI is a PEI indicating paging sub-grouping (paragraph 55 relates to subgroup).
Regarding claim 1 the examiner also notes that per MPEP 2111.04, “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” With respect to claim 1, the only step that is positively recited in the method is “sending a paging early indication”, which is clearly taught by XU (fig. 5 540). It is not clear that the other steps are limiting.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses wherein the first type of PEI and the second type of PEI are not multiplexed (paragraph 60 different locations).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses, wherein at least one of differences are provided: a paging-radio network temporary identifier (P-RNTI) of the first type of PEI is different from a P-RNTI of the second type of PEI; a common search space of the first type of PEI is different from a common search space of the second type of PEI; a control resource set (Coreset) of the first type of PEI is different from a Coreset of the second type of PEI; or, a format of DCI of the first type of PEI is different from a format of DCI of the second type of PEI (fig. 4 paragraph 60 PEI have different search space).
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses: 10. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of: receiving capability information supporting the first type of PEI sent by a terminal; or, receiving capability information of whether to support the second type of PEI sent by the terminal (fig. 5 510-520 capability sent in 510 defines PEI in 520).
Regarding claim 24, Xu discloses: 24. (Previously Presented) A base station, comprising: a memory; and a processor connected to the memory, configured to execute computer-executable instructions stored on the memory, and caused to implement the method according to claim 1 (fig. 5 110, paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 27, Xu discloses:
27. (New) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving capability information from a terminal (fig. 5 510), wherein capability information indicates that the terminal supports the second type of PEI (paragraph 61); and sending the PEI based on the capability information, wherein the PEI sent comprises the first type of PEI (fig. 4 1-6 correspond to PEI).
Regarding claim 28, Xu discloses:
28. (New) The method according to claim 27, wherein the terminal with a capability of supporting the second type of PEI has a capability of supporting the first type of PEI by default (paragraph 61 higher tier UE would support lower tier PEI).
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses:
11. (Currently Amended) A method for group paging, performed by a terminal, comprising: receiving a paging early indication (fig. 5 540); wherein an indication of whether a type of the PEI is a first type of PEI or a second type of PEI is carried by downlink control information (paragraph 55 DCI pertains to group or subgroup, paragraph 60 DCI indicating PEI, paragraph 62 PEI associated with different classes of UE), and the DCIs corresponding to the first type of PEI and the second type of PEI are different (paragraph 60 PEI associated with DCI; paragraph 62 PEI associated with different types of terminals), wherein for the first type of PEI, its DCI format carries one bit or one code point (paragraph 55 DCI is digital information and would therefore carry at least one bit); or an indication of whether the type of the PEI is the first type of PEI or the second type of PEI is carried by a system message received from a base station(paragraph 60 DCI indicates PEI); the PEI comprises at least one of a first type of PEI or a second type of PEI, wherein the first type of PEI is a PEI without indicating a-paging sub-grouping (paragraph 55 relates to group), and the second type of PEI is a PEI indicating the paging sub-grouping (paragraph 55 relates to subgroup).
Regarding claim 11 the examiner also notes that per MPEP 2111.04, “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” With respect to claim 11, the only step that is positively recited in the method is “receiving a paging early indication”, which is clearly taught by XU (fig. 5 540). It is not clear that the other steps are limiting.
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses wherein the first type of PEI and the second type of PEI are not multiplexed (paragraph 60 different locations).
Regarding claim 14, Xu discloses, wherein at least one of differences are provided: a paging-radio network temporary identifier (P-RNTI) of the first type of PEI is different from a P-RNTI of the second type of PEI; a common search space of the first type of PEI is different from a common search space of the second type of PEI; a control resource set (Coreset) of the first type of PEI is different from a Coreset of the second type of PEI; or, a format of DCI of the first type of PEI is different from a format of DCI of the second type of PEI (fig. 4 paragraph 60 PEI have different search space).
Regarding claim 20, Xu discloses:
20. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 11, further comprising at least one of: determining that the PEI is the first type of PEI, performing, by a terminal supporting the first type of PEI, a paging operation based on the first type of PEI; determining that the PEI is the second type of PEI, performing, by a terminal supporting the second type of PEI, a paging operation based on the second type of PEI; determining that the PEI is the first type of PEI, performing, by a terminal supporting the second type of PEI, a paging operation based on the first type of PEI; or, determining that the PEI is the second type of PEI, performing, by a terminal supporting the first type of PEI, a paging operation based on the second type of PEI (fig. 5 540 PEI in accordance with configuration).
Regarding claim 21, Xu discloses:
21. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 11, further comprising at least one of: reporting capability information that the terminal supports the first type of PEI; or, reporting capability information of whether the terminal supports the second type of PEI (fig. 5 510, 540 PEI in accordance with capability).
Regarding claim 29, Xu discloses:29. (New) The method according to claim 11, further comprising: sending capability information to the base station, wherein capability information indicates that the terminal supports the second type of PEI, and the capability information is configured for the base station to send the PEI, wherein the PEI sent comprises the first type of PEI (fig. 5 510, 540 PEI in accordance with capability).
Regarding claim 30, Xu discloses: wherein the terminal with a capability of supporting the second type of PEI has a capability of supporting the first type of PEI by default (paragraph 61 higher tier UE would support lower tier PEI).
Regarding claim 26: Xu discloses:
26. (Currently Amended) A terminal, comprising: a memory; and a processor connected to the memory, configured to (fig. 5 120, paragraph 100): receive a paging early indication (fig. 5 540I); wherein an indication of whether a type of the PEI is a first type of PEI or a second type of PEI is carried by downlink control information (paragraph 55 DCI pertains to group or subgroup, paragraph 60 DCI indicating PEI, paragraph 62 PEI associated with different classes of UE), and the DCIs corresponding to the first type of PEI and the second type of PEI are different (paragraph 60 PEI associated with DCI; paragraph 62 PEI associated with different types of terminals), wherein for the first type of PEI, its DCI format carries one bit or one code point (paragraph 55 DCI is digital information and would therefore carry at least one bit); or an indication of whether the type of the PEI is the first type of PEI or the second type of PEI is carried by a system message received from a base station (paragraph 60 DCI indicates PEI); the PEI comprises at least one of a first type of PEI or a second type of PEI, wherein the first type of PEI is a PEI without indicating a-paging sub-grouping (paragraph 55 relates to group), and the second type of PEI is a PEI indicating the paging sub-grouping (paragraph 55 relates to subgroup).
Regarding claim 26 the examiner also notes that per MPEP 2111.04, “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” With respect to claim 26, the wherein clauses and the indication clause fail to limit the structure of claim 26.
Regarding claim 31, Xu discloses: sending capability information to the base station, wherein capability information indicates that the terminal supports the second type of PEI, and the capability information is configured for the base station to send the PEI, wherein the PEI sent comprises the first type of PEI (fig. 5 510, 540 PEI in accordance with capability).
Regarding claim 32, Xu discloses: wherein the terminal with a capability of supporting the second type of PEI has a capability of supporting the first type of PEI by default (paragraph 61 higher tier UE would support lower tier PEI).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights