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 .
The Office Action is responsive to the communication filed on 07/23/2024.
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/23/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation reciting “the paging occasion” should be changed to -- a paging occasion --, in line 8 of claim 1 and in line 9 of claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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).
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 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12069608. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject matter of conflicting claim 1. Instant claim 1 does not require the “the paging message indicates to the UE that a paging Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) carries transmission information of a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) within the PDCCH” of conflicting claim 1 and each of the other steps are more broadly written.
Regarding claim 1, the table below shows that claim 1 of the patent contains the elements of claim 1 of the instant application, and therefore, is an obvious variant thereof.
Instant Application 18/780,652
Patent 12069608
1.A paging indication method, applied to user equipment (UE), wherein the method comprises:
receiving indication information from a network side device, wherein the indication information is used to indicate a detection parameter used by the UE to detect a paging message, and the detection parameter is used to determine a detection manner used by the UE to detect the paging message; and
determining the detection manner based on the detection parameter; wherein if the indication information indicates that the UE detects the paging message on the (a) paging occasion, the detection manner used by the UE to detect the paging message is that the UE detects a paging PDCCH on the paging occasion.
1.A paging indication method, performed by a user equipment (UE), wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by the UE, information from a network side device, wherein the information comprises a detection parameter for the UE to determine a paging message sent on a paging occasion, wherein the detection parameter further comprises a detection manner that informs the UE as to how to detect the paging message; and
determining, by the UE, the detection manner based on the detection parameter; and wherein the detection manner is to request the UE to detect the paging message in a first detection period after the UE received the information, wherein the paging message indicates to the UE that a paging Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) carries transmission information of a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) within the PDCCH.
Instant claim 2 and conflicting claim 1 correspond.
Instant claim 3 and conflicting claim 3 correspond.
Instant claim 4 and conflicting claim 4 correspond.
Instant claim 5 and conflicting claim 7 correspond with, therefore, obvious variants thereof.
Instant claim 6 and conflicting claim 8 correspond.
Instant claim 7 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject matter of conflicting claim 9. Instant claim 7 does not require the “the paging message indicates to the UE that a paging Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) carries transmission information of a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) within the PDCCH” of conflicting claim 9 and each of the other steps are more broadly written.
Instant claim 8 and conflicting claim 9 correspond.
Instant claim 9 and conflicting claim 11 correspond.
Instant claim 10 and conflicting claim 12 correspond.
Instant claim 11 and conflicting claim 15 correspond.
Instant claim 12 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject matter of conflicting claim 16.
Instant claim 13 and conflicting claims 1 and 17 correspond.
Instant claim 14 and conflicting claim 18 correspond.
Instant claim 15 and conflicting claim 15 correspond.
Instant claim 16 and conflicting claim 16 correspond.
Instant claim 17 and conflicting claim 18 correspond.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by RAN WG1 Meeting #NR-AH3.
Regarding claim 1, Meeting #NR-AH3 discloses a paging indication method, applied to user equipment (UE) (Title: “Summary on remaining details on paging”), wherein the method comprises:
receiving indication information from a network side device (Page 3, Background (2), “- Paging message is scheduled by DCI carried by NR-PDCCH”), wherein the indication information is used to indicate a detection parameter used by the UE to detect a paging message (Page 3, Background (2), “Paging message is scheduled by DCI carried by NR-PCCH and is transmitted in the associated NR-PDSCH;” also, wherein, “- Opt-1: paging indicator is in DCI”), and the detection parameter (e.g., “Paging DCI”) is used to determine a detection manner used by the UE to detect the paging message (Page 5,”Paging Mechanisms:” “Option 1: Paging DCI followed by Paging Message, - Note: These do not imply that they are consecutive;” and “Option 2: Paging group indicator triggering beam reporting and Paging DCI followed by Paging Message,” that is, the two options, indeed relate to alternative detection manners of the paging message); and
determining the detection manner based on the detection parameter (Page 5, paging Mechanisms, “Paging CI indicates use of Option 1 or 2,” that is, this indication of the manner is carried out in a corresponding signaling parameter of the paging indication), wherein if the indication information indicates that the UE detects the paging message on the paging occasion, the detection manner used by the UE to detect the paging message is that the UE detects a paging PDCCH on the paging occasion ((Page 2, - 7: Paging occasion can consist of multiple time slots (e.g. subframe or OFDM symbol). (Multiple time slots enable transmission of paging using a different set of DL TX beam(s) in each time slot, or could enable repetition - RAN1 decision,” and Page 3, Background (2): “- Paging message is scheduled by DCI carried by NR- PDCCH and is transmitted in the associated NR- PDSCH”).
Regarding claim 2, Meeting #NR-AH3 discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the detection parameter comprises whether the UE detects the paging message on a paging occasion, wherein the paging occasion is an occasion on which the UE detects the paging message in a first detection period, and the first detection period is at least one detection period after the UE receives the indication information (Page 2, - 7: Paging occasion can consist of multiple time slots (e.g. subframe or OFDM symbol). (Multiple time slots enable transmission of paging using a different set of DL TX beam(s) in each time slot, or could enable repetition - RAN1 decision,” and Page 3, Background (2): “- Paging message is scheduled by DCI carried by NR- PDCCH and is transmitted in the associated NR- PDSCH”).
Regarding claim 3, Meeting #NR-AH3 discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the detection parameter further comprises at least one of the following: whether to send a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) on a paging occasion, a time-domain resource scheduling manner of a PDSCH used to send the paging message, reference signal activation information, an indication of system information or warning information update, a resource used to send the paging message, or a control channel sending parameter of the paging message (Page 2, - 7: Paging occasion can consist of multiple time slots (e.g. subframe or OFDM symbol). (Multiple time slots enable transmission of paging using a different set of DL TX beam(s) in each time slot, or could enable repetition - RAN1 decision,” and Page 3, Background (2): “- Paging message is scheduled by DCI carried by NR- PDCCH and is transmitted in the associated NR- PDSCH”).
Regarding claim 5, Meeting #NR-AH3 discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein a time interval between a third occasion and the paging occasion is predefined in a communications protocol, or the time interval is configured by the network side device for the UE, wherein the third occasion is an occasion on which the UE receives the indication information (Page 4: "the number of time slots in a paging occasion (PO interval) is provided in system information").
Regarding claim 6, Meeting #NR-AH3 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving indication information from a network side device comprises: receiving control information from the network side device, wherein the control information comprises the indication information; and obtaining the indication information from the control information (Page 2, - 7: Paging occasion can consist of multiple time slots (e.g. subframe or OFDM symbol). (Multiple time slots enable transmission of paging using a different set of DL TX beam(s) in each time slot, or could enable repetition - RAN1 decision,” and Page 3, Background (2): “- Paging message is scheduled by DCI carried by NR- PDCCH and is transmitted in the associated NR- PDSCH”).
Claim 7 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (WG1 Meeting #NR-AH3, page 1, “1: UE monitors paging/notification”).
Claim 8 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (WG1 Meeting #NR-AH3, page 1, “1: UE monitors paging/notification”).
Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAN WG1 Meeting #NR-AH3 in view Lin et al (EP3598814).
Regarding claim 4, RAN WG1 Meeting #NR-AH3 discloses the method according to claim 3, except wherein the resource used to send the paging message is a bandwidth part (BWP) used to send the paging message. Lin discloses Figure 1 describing paging message implementation wherein, gNB may transmit a plurality of SSBs located within a wideband aggregated carrier which is divided into a plurality of BWPs as each BWP may contain a different SSB, and some SSBs are associated with the RMSI (Lin, page 1, [0004], ll. 30-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use of BWP for sending paging using BWP as taught by Lin because such deployment with the multiple CD-SSBs could help the base station, gNB, to distribute the UEs in an idle mode or in an inactive mode and reduce power consumptions of UEs by balancing the loadings when such UEs enter the connected mode from the idle mode and also helps the gNB to increase capacity and more likely reduce the overall power consumptions of the UEs in general.
Claim 10 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights