DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 09/30/2024.
Claims 1-24 are pending for Examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on: 09/25/2024 are determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS’ are being considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
1. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double-patenting, as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,228,974. See the claim mapping correspondence tables, provided below.
Instant Application: 18/736,024
Application Claims 1 and 13
US Patent: 11,228,974
receiving, by a base station distributed unit (DU), an indication of at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving
Claim 1: receiving, by a base station distributed unit (DU) from a wireless device, a first radio resource control (RRC) message comprising wireless device information, wherein the wireless device information comprises an indication of a power configuration for the wireless device
Claim 2: wherein the indication of the power configuration for the wireless device comprises: a power preference indication indicating that the wireless device prefers a configuration for power saving.
sending, by the base station DU to a wireless device, at least one configuration parameter that is based on the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving
Claim 1: determining, by the base station DU and based on the wireless device information, at least one power configuration parameter;
Claim 3: receiving, by the base station DU from the base station CU, a second RRC message comprising the at least one power configuration parameter; and forwarding, by the base station DU to the wireless device, the second RRC message
Instant Application: 18/736,024
Application Claims 7 and 19
US Patent: 11,228,974
sending, by a wireless device to a base station distributed unit (DU), an indication of at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving
Claim 18: determining, by a wireless device, wireless device information comprising an indication of a power configuration for the wireless device; sending, by the wireless device to a base station distributed unit (DU), a first radio resource control (RRC) message comprising the wireless device information;
Claim 19: wherein the power configuration for the wireless device comprises a power preference indication indicating that the wireless device prefers a configuration for power saving
receiving, by the wireless device from the base station (DU), at least one configuration parameter that is based on the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving
Claim 18: receiving, by the wireless device from a base station central unit (CU) via the base station DU, a second RRC message comprising at least one power configuration parameter based on the wireless device information
Claim 19: wherein the power configuration for the wireless device comprises a power preference indication indicating that the wireless device prefers a configuration for power saving
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above claim limitations of US Patent 11,228,974 collectively recite the same technical subject matter as that of the independent claims of the instant application, with additional features added, i.e., RRC messaging. Therefore, the patent claims read on all of the corresponding independent claim limitation of the instant application, according to the above claim mapping correspondence tables.
2. Claim 1 and 13 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double-patenting, as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,041,541. See the claim mapping correspondence table, provided below.
Instant Application: 18/736,024
Application Claims 1 and 13
US Patent: 12,041,541
receiving, by a base station distributed unit (DU), an indication of at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving
Claim 1: receiving, by a base station central unit (CU) from a wireless device, a first message comprising an indication of a power configuration for the wireless device
Claim 3: wherein the receiving the first message comprises receiving the first message forwarded by the base station DU from the wireless device
Claim 2: wherein the power configuration for the wireless device comprises a power preference indication indicating that the wireless device prefers a configuration for power saving.
sending, by the base station DU to a wireless device, at least one configuration parameter that is based on the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving
Claim 1: sending, by the base station CU to the wireless device, a fourth message comprising the at least one power configuration parameter.
Claim 4: wherein the at least one power configuration parameter is determined by the base station DU based on the indication of the power configuration for the wireless device;
Claim 2: wherein the power configuration for the wireless device comprises a power preference indication indicating that the wireless device prefers a configuration for power saving.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above claim limitations of US Patent 11,228,974 collectively recite the same technical subject matter as that of the independent claims of the instant application, with analogous features recited. Notably, in order to facilitate PHY layer (L1) communications between a base station (BS) and a wireless device, BS DU communication is also required. Therefore “sending by the base station CU to the wireless device,” also requires sending through the BS DU, as the DU includes the L1 PHY layer, whereas the CU does not. Therefore, the patent claims read on all of the corresponding independent claim limitation of the instant application, according to the above claim mapping correspondence table, and that which is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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)(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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0104164 A1, Kedalagudde et al. (hereinafter “Kedalagudde”).
With respect to claim 1, Kedalagudde teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a base station distributed unit (DU), an indication of at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving (paras. [0004], [0038], [0041]-[0044], [0064] [0169]-[0170], [0175]-[0177], [0180], and [0185]-[0187]; Tables 1-2, RAN 410 of Fig. 4, and lower layers (L1 and L2) of a BS 1000, including RLC 1030, MAC 1020 and PHY 1010 layers of Fig. 10 —a UE can send, and a BS (DU PHY layer) can receive, a “preferred network behavior” of the UE in terms of an Access Node (AN) parameter, i.e., a “preference parameter,” related to cellular Internet or Things (CIoT) capability information for extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) and/or power saving mode (PSM) functionality of the UE via PHY layer signaling during initial access/RRC connection establishment, i.e., via Registration Request —the Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure describes its DU to include the L1 and L2 lower layer functionality, i.e., RLC, MAC, and PHY layers, of a BS, at paras. [0142]-[0144], [0148], and [0311]; as such, the Examiner interprets RAN BS DU processes to be equivalent to RAN BS lower layer, L1 and/or L2, processes); and
sending, by the base station DU to a wireless device, at least one configuration parameter that is based on the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving (paras. [0171]-[0172], [0177], [0179]-[0180], [0182], and [0188]; Table 3, Box 302 of Fig. 3, RAN 410 of Fig. 4, and BS 1000 RLC 1030, MAC 1020 and PHY 1010 layers of Fig. 10 —based on receiving a UE “preferred parameter” (via L1 PHY layer signaling) corresponding to UE CIoT capability information IE (w/eDRX and/or PSM parameters), a BS can transmit a corresponding configuration parameter (relating to network eDRX and/or PSM optimization support parameter, etc.) to the UE in a 5G network support IE via a Broadcast SIB or a Registration Response).
With respect to claim 3, Kedalagudde teaches:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the at least one configuration parameter comprises at least one of:
a cell configuration parameter of one or more cells of the base station DU;
a radio resource configuration parameter;
a beam configuration parameter;
a bandwidth part (BWP) configuration parameter;
a transmission power configuration parameter;
a frequency configuration parameter;
a beamforming configuration parameter;
a physical control channel scheduling parameter;
an antenna configuration parameter;
a cell selection configuration parameter;
a cell reselection configuration parameter;
system information; an
interference control parameter; and
a multicast-broadcast single frequency network (MBSFN) configuration parameter (paras. [0025]-[0036], [0182], [0188], and [0351]-[0352] —a BS can determine various support/optimization configuration parameters associated with 5GS CIoT, CP/UP, PSM, eDRX, and Header compression optimization, N3 data support, etc. of the RAN, which the Examiner interprets to be equivalent to a configuration parameter(s) comprising a radio resource configuration parameter —supported configuration parameters can also be provided via System Information messaging to the UE; thus, RAN configuration parameters can be reasonably equated to SI —the alternative term “at least one of” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single, claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 4, Kedalagudde teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving comprises a preference associated with discontinuous reception (DRX) (paras. [0041] and [0169]-[0170]; and Table 1-2 —a UE preferred parameter can be associated with DRX/eDRX).
With respect to claim 7, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 7 is directed to an analogous method performed from the perspective of the wireless device (UEs 401a-b of Fig. 4), as opposed to the base station. As such, claim 7 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Kedalagudde teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sending the indication of the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving comprises:
sending, by the wireless device to the base station DU, a message comprising the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving (paras. [0041]-[0044], [0064] [0169]-[0170], [0175]-[0177], [0180], and [0185]-[0187]; and Tables 1-2, —a UE can send, and a BS (DU PHY layer) can receive a “preference parameter,” related to cellular Internet or Things (CIoT) capability information for extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) and/or power saving mode (PSM) functionality of the UE via RRC message signaling during initial access/RRC connection establishment, at para. [0180]), and wherein the message further comprises at least one of: a wireless device identifier of the wireless device; or a signaling radio bearer identifier associated with the message (paras. [0041]-[0045] and [0309]-[0311] —an RRC connection establishment message can include a UE identifier —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single, claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 10, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 10 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 13 is directed to a base station, comprising one or more processors and a memory (BS 700 with Processor 745 and Memory 720 of Fig. 7). As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to independent claims 1/7, except claim 19 is directed to a wireless device comprising one or more processors and memory (UEs 401a-b of Fig. 4, and UE 700 with processor 745 and memory 720 of Fig. 7). As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for independent claims 1/7.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 8.
With respect to claim 21, this claim recites similar features to dependent claims 3/9. As such, claim 21 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claims 3/9.
With respect to claim 22, this claim recites similar features to dependent claims 4/10. As such, claim 22 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Kedalagudde, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claims 4/10.
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.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalagudde in view of US PG Pub. 2020/0252988 A1, Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
With Respect to Claim 2, Kedalagudde teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the base station based on the indication of the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving, the at least one configuration parameter (paras. [0180]-[0182] —the RAN BS lower layers L1 and/or L2 can receive a UE preferred parameter relating to eDRX and/or PSM functionality, and the BS can determine corresponding network configuration parameter(s) (relating to network eDRX and/or PSM optimization parameter) for UE communications, i.e., to broadcast in a SIB IE or in association with an AMF for registration).
However, Kedalagudde does not explicitly teach:
The DU of a BS determining at least one configuration parameter based on the indication of the at least one wireless device.
However, Wang does teach:
The DU of a BS determining at least one configuration parameter based on an indication of at least one wireless device (paras. [0315]-[0328], [0416]-[0421], [0831]-[0837], [0767]-[0771], [0989]-[0996]; and Figs. 16B-C, 27-28 and 32 —a DU of a BS can independently determine various configuration parameters corresponding to a UE-associated communication request message, including: a UE-ID, i.e., C-RNTI, DU F1AP ID, CU F1AP ID, cell ID information associated with the request, i.e., PCI, NCI, NCGI, resource allocation of the DU for the request, SRB (radio bearer) configuration parameters, i.e., SRB ID or SRB1, and other RLC, MAC , and PHY layer parameters associated with the request —the DU can indicate its resource allocation configuration parameters to the CU —further a DU can send its determined configuration or modified configuration parameter(s) to a CU, as depicted in Figs. 27-28 and 32 —a configuration parameter can be parameter related to max UE transmission power (p-MAX), at para. [0771]).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kedalagudde’s BS determination of a configuration parameter based on a received indication of a UE preferred parameter for power saving, i.e., eDRX capability, etc., with the BS DU configuration parameter determination solution, taught by Wang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the DU lower layers, L1 and L2, of a BS, to separately determine various communication parameters based on a received UE communication request, as recognized by Wang (paras. [0315]-[0328], [0416]-[0421], [0831]-[0837], [0989]-[0996]; and Figs. 16B-C, 27-28 and 32).
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2, except claim 14 is written from the perspective of the base station DU. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kedalagudde in view of Wang, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
Claims 5-6, 11-12, 17-18, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalagudde in view of US PG Pub. 2020/0374982 A1, Toeda et al. (hereinafter “Toeda”).
With Respect to Claim 5, Kedalagudde teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the indication comprises:
receiving, by the base station DU from the wireless device, a radio resource control (RRC) message (paras. [0180], [0328], and [0353] —a UE can send, and PHY layer component of a BS DU can receive, RRC signaling, i.e., a Registration Request Msg., comprising preferred power saving, i.e., eDRX and/or PSM parameters, during RRC Connection Establishment); and
receiving, at the base station DU an indication of the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving paras. [0171]-[0172], [0177], [0179]-[0180], [0182], and [0188] —in response to relaying the UE RRC message, the BS can receive an indication of a corresponding BS eDRX and/or PCM optimization parameter to forward to the UE at the lower PHY layer (DU)).
However, Kedalagudde does not explicitly teach:
sending, by the base station DU to a base station central unit (CU), the RRC message; and
receiving, by the base station DU from the base station CU, the indication of the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving.
Toeda does teach:
sending, by the base station DU to a base station central unit (CU), the message (paras. [0037]-[0040], [0049]-[0060], [0086]-[0087], [0093], and [0098]; Figs 5 and 7-8 —a BS 5G-DU can acquire a UE message with a parameter that is a coordination-necessary and managed at the 5G-CU, and then send the message to the 5G-CU); and
receiving, by the base station DU from the base station CU, an indication of the at least one wireless device preferred parameter for power saving (paras. [0037]-[0040], [0049]-[0060], [0086]-[0087], [0093], and [0098]; Figs 5 and 7-8 —the 5G-CU can then transmit, and the 5G-DU can receive, an indication of a coordination-necessary DRX power-saving parameter).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kedalagudde’s BS determination of a configuration parameter based on a received indication of a UE preferred parameter for power saving, i.e., eDRX capability, with the BS 5G CU-DU coordination-necessary, DRX parameter configuration parameter management solution, taught by Toeda.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the BS CU entity to manage coordination-necessary, power-saving DRX parameter, and to quicky provide the parameter to the UE via the DU entity in response to a request, as recognized by Toeda (paras. [0037]-[0040], [0049]-[0060], [0086]-[0087], [0093], and [0098]; Figs 5 and 7-8).
With respect to claim 6, Kedalagudde teaches:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the sending the at least one configuration parameter comprises:
sending, by the base station DU the at least one configuration parameter (paras. [0180], [0328], and [0353] —PHY layer component of a BS DU can forward a received configuration parameter of a Registration Request Msg. i.e., eDRX and/or PSM parameters, during RRC Connection Establishment);
sending, by the base station DU to the wireless device an RRC message (paras. [0148], [0180], [0328], and [0353] —the PHY layer component of a BS DU can send an RRC Connection Setup Complete message to a wireless device).
However, Kedalagudde does not explicitly teach:
sending, by the base station DU to the base station CU, the at least one configuration parameter; and
receiving, by the base station DU from the base station CU, a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising the at least one configuration parameter.
Toeda does teach:
sending, by the base station DU to a base station central unit (CU), the at least one configuration parameter (paras. [0037]-[0040], [0049]-[0060], [0086]-[0087], [0093], and [0098]; Figs 5 and 7-8 —a BS 5G-DU can send a message with a parameter that is a coordination-necessary and managed at the 5G-CU, and then send the message to the 5G-CU); and
receiving, by the base station DU from the base station CU, a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising the at least one configuration parameter (paras. [0037]-[0040], [0049]-[0060], [0086]-[0087], [0093], and [0098]; Figs 5 and 7-8 —the 5G-CU can then transmit, and the 5G-DU can receive, an RRC message with a coordination-necessary DRX power-saving parameter).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kedalagudde’s BS determination of a configuration parameter based on a received indication of a UE preferred parameter for power saving, i.e., eDRX capability, with the BS 5G CU-DU coordination-necessary, DRX parameter configuration parameter management solution, taught by Toeda.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the BS CU entity to manage coordination-necessary, power-saving DRX parameter, and to quicky provide the parameter to the UE via the DU entity in response to a request, as recognized by Toeda (paras. [0037]-[0040], [0049]-[0060], [0086]-[0087], [0093], and [0098]; Figs 5 and 7-8).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5, except claim 11 is written from the perspective of the wireless device. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kedalagudde in view of Toeda, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6, except claim 12 is written from the perspective of the wireless device. As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kedalagudde in view of Toeda, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kedalagudde in view of Toeda, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kedalagudde in view of Toeda, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 23, this claim recites similar features to dependent claims 5/11, except claim 23 is written from the perspective of the wireless device. As such, claim 23 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kedalagudde in view of Toeda, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claims 5/11.
With respect to claim 24, this claim recites similar features to dependent claims 6/12, except claim 24 is written from the perspective of the wireless device. As such, claim 24 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kedalagudde in view of Toeda, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claims 6/12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2019/0208478 A1, Park et al.: teaches base station DU-CU power control solutions related to the present invention, with the same inventor set assigned to Offino, LLC.
US PG Pub 2021/0112504 A1, Park et al.: teaches base station DU-CU power control solutions related to the present invention, with the same inventor set assigned to Offino, LLC.
US PG Pub 2020/0383164 A1, Kim et al.: teaches base station DU-CU RRC control connection solutions with UE context information indicating DRX parameters.
US PG Pub 2019/0182716 A1, Futaki et al.: teaches base station DU-CU RRC control connection solutions with UE context information indicating BWP parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights