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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, sub-species (c) claims 21, 25-28, 32 and 33 in the reply filed on 6/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant traverses the Restriction Requirement as not being in proper form because the Examiner has identified the alleged "species" solely by reference to the claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Within the restriction the examiner pointed to the paragraphs which represent each species and also provides a clear summary of each Species. Applicant seems to completely ignore this. Further, the cited paragraphs from the Applicants specification depict the different aspects of the invention which clearly states: “According to a first aspect” (Par.6 – Species I directed to Method and apparatus of an Access Network Device) and “According to a second aspect” (Par.42 – Species II directed to a Terminal Device). The claim numbers represent which paragraph/embodiment they are tied to.
Applicant argues none of the cited paragraphs identified by examiner describes a particular figure or example… or other distinguishing characteristics.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The paragraphs as cited by examiner each clearly describe at least distinguishing characteristics. For the SPECIES I and II – the cited paragraphs “According to a first aspect” (Par.6 – Species I directed to Method and apparatus of an Access Network Device) and “According to a second aspect” (Par.42 – Species II directed to a Terminal Device).
Each species is further supported by detailed embodiments, as evidenced by the sub-species paragraphs, each beginning with “In a possible implementation”. These paragraphs provide additional distinguishing features for each species and sub-species, which are directly reflected in the dependent claims. Each species and sub-species is introduced in a separate paragraph, with explicit language indicating that the implementations are alternatives (“In a possible implementation...”), and not cumulative or overlapping. The claims are essentially direct extractions from these distinct specification sections, further evidencing their separateness.
Applicant argues that the Species and Sub-species are not mutually exclusive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as each Species have features not claimed within the other. Further, each sub-species have features not claimed within the other. The fact that Species I and II can be used in the same system does not exclude them from being mutually exclusive. Further, the claims are not constructed to positively recite that they are within the same system. Species I is directed to an Access network device which performs steps not required of the Terminal device and Species II is directed to a Terminal device performing steps not required by the Access network. The same reasoning for sub-species is true, the fact that the sub-species can be used together does not exclude them from being mutually exclusive and the claims are not constructed to positively recite that they are used together.
Applicant argues that the restriction fails to show serious search burden.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Upon inspection of the different Species and Sub-species, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that, at the very least, different search terms, strategies, and queries would need to be employed as stated in the original restriction requirement to address the divergent subject matter. Each species and sub-species is introduced in a separate paragraph, with explicit language indicating that the implementations are alternatives (“In a possible implementation...”), and not cumulative or overlapping. The claims are essentially direct extractions from these distinct specification sections, further evidencing their separateness and divergent subject matter. Hence a clear search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20230120457) in view of Li (US 20180041984)
Regarding 21 and 28, Ren teaches A method applied to an access network device (Fig.3 and Par.46, NG-Ran node), the method comprising: receiving first information (Fig.3:302) from a core network device (Fig.3:AMF), wherein the first information indicates to send first location information of a terminal device to the core network device (Fig.3 and Par.46, location of UE (i.e. first location information)); determining the first location information (Par.45 and Par.46, “The location information of the terminal device is reported to the mobility management node according to the indicated type”, note: the RAN node determines the location to send to the AMF based on the IE, hence determines); and sending the first location information to the core network device (Fig.3:303), however Ren does not expressly teach wherein the first location information is configured to be used by the core network device to determine a paging area or a registration area of the terminal device.
Li teaches that it is well known in the art to determine the paging area of the UE according to the UEs tracking area and mobility information (including current location) (Par.4, Par.69, MME in LTE is an AMF in 5G). A skilled artisan can readily see that Rens teachings (at least Fig.3) clearly provide the information needed to identify the paging area—the AMF knows the UE's current cell or tracking area and the modification of Ren with the teachings of Li is obvious as the AMF, upon determining the UE's location (cell/area), would simply use that information to update or set the paging area. This is a routine use of location information in mobility management and paging, well-known to those skilled in the art. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention of Edge with the teachings of Li such that an enhanced system is provided which would efficiently use the using the most recent location information (cell, area). This would help restrict paging to the most likely area thereby reducing unnecessary load on the network and improving user experience.
Claims 25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20230120457) and Rune (US 20240188026) in further view of Manolakos (US 20210360577)
Regarding Claim 25 and 32, Ren already teaches determining first location (Par.46-47, the RAN node determines the location to send to the AMF based on the IE, hence determines), however Ren and Li does not explicitly teach sending second information to the terminal device based on the first information, wherein the second information indicates the terminal device to send second location information to the access network device; receiving the second location information from the terminal device wherein the second location information comprises a target location, and the target location is a location of the terminal device determined by the terminal device based on the second information; and determining the first location information based on the second location information.
Manolakos teaches a well known concept of sending second information (Par.121, gNB of NG-Ran sends information to UE) to the terminal device based on the first information (Par.121, based on AMF information sent to gNB in NG-Ran), wherein the second information indicates the terminal device to send second location information to the access network device (Par.121, request to UE (i.e. second information) to report location); receiving the second location information from the terminal device (Par.121-122, location estimate is second location information) wherein the second location information comprises a target location (Par.121-122, location estimate), and the target location is a location of the terminal device determined by the terminal device based on the second information (Par.121-122, location estimate (i.e. target loc) calculated by the UE based on request sent to UE (i.e. second info)). Since Ren teaches that a location information (i.e. first location information) received by the access network device is sent to the core network (Par.45-46) and Manolakos teaches sending a request to a UE for location information (Par.121), it is obvious that Ren could determine the first location information to send to the core network by utilizing the location estimate as taught by REN to have been provided by a UE (i.e. second location information), therefore obviously determining the first location information based on the second location information. It would have been obvious to modify the combined invention of Ren and Rune with the teachings of Manolakos before the effective filing date of the invention such that a system with enhanced accuracy via UE-based positioning is utilized without over burdening the network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-27 and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Edge (US 20200053638) – See at least Figure 9
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights