Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's Patent Application filed on June 6, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. This Action is made Non-Final.
America Invents Act (AIA ) Information
2. 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 Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted within this application (has/have) been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11 and 13-20 (is/are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng; Jianfeng et al. (US 20120122495 A1), hereafter “Weng.”
Consider claim 1. Weng discloses an information processing method, performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising (see abstract, fig. 1A: “A mobile device is configured to monitor for an EPI that comprises at least one phase-continuous tone for an EPI occasion in advance of its paging occasion in order to determine if a page is potentially present”): determining whether to monitor a paging message based on a paging early indication (PEI) within an anchor cell of the UE (see par. 0035: “That is, the early paging indicator informs the UE whether a corresponding upcoming paging message is likely to be present and the UE should therefore try to receive a paging message, or whether an upcoming paging message is definitely not present” and par. 0135: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information”. Examiner’s Note: early paging indicator is also referred as with PEI. The phrase “an anchor cell” is described in the specifications as “An anchor cell may be at least one of a cell within which the UE receives a radio resource control (RRC) connection release message; a cell that is lastly used by the UE; or a cell that is lastly accessed by the UE,” and cited “by a cell by receiving” clearly reads on such anchor cell).
Consider claim 2 in view of claim 1 above. Weng further discloses wherein the anchor cell comprises at least one of: a cell within which the UE receives a radio resource control (RRC) connection release message; a cell that is lastly used by the UE; or a cell that is lastly accessed by the UE (see par. 0153: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information” Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 3 in view of claim 1 above. Weng further discloses wherein determining whether to monitor the paging message based on the PEI within the anchor cell of the UE comprises: determining whether to monitor the paging message based on the PEI merely within the anchor cell of the UE (see par. 0153: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information”).
Consider claim 8. Weng discloses an information processing method, performed by an access network device, comprising (see par. 0221: “Paging allows an eNB to broadcast notifications to all UEs within a cell): determining whether to page a user equipment (UE) based on a paging early indication (PEI) within an anchor cell of the UE (see par. 0035: “That is, the early paging indicator informs the UE whether a corresponding upcoming paging message is likely to be present and the UE should therefore try to receive a paging message, or whether an upcoming paging message is definitely not present” and par. 0135: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information”. Examiner’s Note: early paging indicator is also referred as with PEI. The phrase “an anchor cell” is described in the specifications as “An anchor cell may be at least one of a cell within which the UE receives a radio resource control (RRC) connection release message; a cell that is lastly used by the UE; or a cell that is lastly accessed by the UE,” and cited “by a cell by receiving” clearly reads on such anchor cell).
Consider claim 9 in view of claim 8 above. Weng further discloses determining the anchor cell of the UE (see par. 0153: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information”).
Consider claim 10 in view of claim 9 above. Weng further discloses wherein determining the anchor cell of the UE comprises at least one of: determining the anchor cell based on UE release historical record; or determining the anchor cell of the UE based on information sent by a core network device (see par. 0153: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information”).
Consider claim 11 in view of claim 8 above. Weng further discloses wherein determining whether to page the UE based on the PEI within the anchor cell of the UE comprises: determining whether to page the UE based on the PEI merely within the anchor cell of the UE (see par. 0153: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information”).
Consider claim 13. Weng discloses an information processing method, performed by a core network device, comprising: sending notification information to a user equipment (UE), (see par. 0221: “Paging allows an eNB to broadcast notifications to all UEs within a cell): wherein the notification information is used for the UE to determine whether to monitor a paging message based on a paging early indication (PEI) within an anchor cell of the UE (see par. 0035: “That is, the early paging indicator informs the UE whether a corresponding upcoming paging message is likely to be present and the UE should therefore try to receive a paging message, or whether an upcoming paging message is definitely not present” and par. 0135: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information”. Examiner’s Note: early paging indicator is also referred as with PEI. The phrase “an anchor cell” is described in the specifications as “An anchor cell may be at least one of a cell within which the UE receives a radio resource control (RRC) connection release message; a cell that is lastly used by the UE; or a cell that is lastly accessed by the UE,” and cited “by a cell by receiving” clearly reads on such anchor cell).
Consider claim 14 in view of claim 13 above. Weng further discloses sending information to an access network device (see par. 0221: “Paging allows an eNB to broadcast notifications to all UEs within a cell (Examiner’s Note: eNB forwards paging to the UE from the network)): wherein the information sent to the access network device is used for the access network device to determine the anchor cell of the UE (see par. 0035: “That is, the early paging indicator informs the UE whether a corresponding upcoming paging message is likely to be present and the UE should therefore try to receive a paging message, or whether an upcoming paging message is definitely not present” and par. 0135: “mobile device 10 is configured to determine if an early paging indicator is provided by a cell by receiving via wireless access radio 11 a broadcast transmission possibly containing early paging indicator location and configuration information”.
Consider claim 15, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 1. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 1. Furthermore, Weng at paragraphs 156-158 and figure 2, discloses all components of claim 15 to carry out the tasks as in claim 1 above.
Consider claim 16, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 8. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 8. Furthermore, When at paragraph 85 and figure 1A, discloses a base station performing tasks, which are inherently performed by the components recited in claim 16.
Consider claim 17, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 13. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 13. Furthermore, When at paragraph 85 and figure 1A, discloses a base station performing tasks, which are inherently performed by the components recited in claim 17.
Consider claim 18, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 1. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 1. Furthermore, when at paragraphs 156-158 and figure 2, discloses all components of claim 18 to carry out the tasks as in claim 1 above.
Consider claim 19, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 8. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 8. Furthermore, when at paragraphs 156-158 and figure 2, discloses all components of claim 19 to carry out the tasks as in claim 8 above.
Consider claim 20, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 13. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 13. Furthermore, when at paragraphs 156-158 and figure 2, discloses all components of claim 20 to carry out the tasks as in claim 13 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of NADER; Ali et al. (US 20240244529 A1), hereafter “NADER.” (see provisional application No. 63186315 for priority date)
Consider claim 4 in view of claim 1 above. Weng discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by NADER, in analogous art; determining whether to monitor the paging message based on the PEI outside the anchor cell (see par. 0150: “the wireless device monitors in at least one additional cell, which is not a cell in the at least one last cell used by the wireless device, for the PEI and/or the WUS”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Weng and have it include the teachings of NADER. The motivation would have been in order to monitor other available cells (see par. 0150).
Consider claim 5 in view of claim 1 above. Weng discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by NADER, in analogous art; wherein determining whether to monitor the paging message based on the PEI within the anchor cell of the UE comprises: determining, based on notification information sent by a network device, whether to monitor the paging message based on the PEI within the anchor cell of the UE (see par. 0168: “determines, based on the characteristic associated with the wireless device and/or the cell in which the wireless device is located, that PEI and/or WUS is to be used in the at least one last cell used by the wireless device. The method further includes transmitting, to the wireless device, a message indicating that the wireless device is to monitor for PEI and/or WUS in the at least one last cell used by the wireless device”). The motivation would have been in order to monitor other available cells (see par. 0150).
Consider claim 6 in view of claim 5 above. Weng further discloses wherein the notification information comprises at least one of: notification information sent by an access network device, or notification information sent by a core network device (see par. 0221: “Paging allows an eNB to broadcast notifications to all UEs within a cell”).
Consider claim 7 in view of claim 6 above. Weng further discloses wherein the notification information is targeted to the UE or a cell (see par. 0221: “Paging allows an eNB to broadcast notifications to all UEs within a cell”).
Consider claim 12 in view of claim 8 above. Weng discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by NADER, in analogous art; determining whether to page the UE based on the PEI outside the anchor cell (see par. 0150: “the wireless device monitors in at least one additional cell, which is not a cell in the at least one last cell used by the wireless device, for the PEI and/or the WUS”).
Conclusion
12. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210099954 A1: discloses method and apparatus for monitoring wake up signal.
US 20200367195 A1: discloses energy efficiency paging reception mechanisms.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights