DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
No domestic benefit or foreign priority is claimed by the Application.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 17 Sept 2024 and 30 Dec 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 Sept 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Rule 111 Reply notes that Zhu is only prior art based on the domestic benefit provided by its three provisional applications, each of which pre-dates the filing date of the Application. Reply, 7. The Reply then asserts “the Examiner must show that the cited portions [of Zhu] are present in a priority document that pre-dates the present application.” Ibid. The Examiner contends a prima facie case of unpatentability does not include this requirement. The Reply further notes that after reviewing one of the three provisional applications of Zhu, the Applicant asserts that “some of the cited portions of Zhu are not present in the ‘265 provisional” and then lists all the paragraphs of Zhu cited in rejecting claim 1. Ibid. (identifying Zhu, ¶¶173, 177, 181, 185-190, 206, 209, and 210 as not being present in the ‘265 provisional). In short, the Applicant reviewed one of Zhu’s three provisional applications and found that none of the citations provided in the obviousness rejection of claim 1 are supported by the reviewed provisional.
In an effort towards compact prosecution, the Examiner will discuss some of the written description support provided by Zhu’s provisional application, though this is not a requirement. For example, Zhu is cited for teaching a UE transmitting an indicator to change from a first uplink channel to a second uplink channel. Non-final Act. at 4 (citing Zhu, ¶156). The ‘078 provisional states “the UE could send to the network an indicator to trigger a TCI state change/update/switch for one or more channels or signals.” ‘078 provisional at unnumbered pg. 24.
The Non-final Rejection also cited Zhu’s uplink channel being configured based on information provided by the network, such as a DCI. Non-final Act. at 4-5 (citing ¶¶159,173, 177). Paragraph 159 finds support on unnumbered page 25 of the ‘078 provisional (see first bullet point on line 3). Zhu is also cited for transmitting a report over the defined second UL channel. Non-final Act. at 5 (citing ¶¶181, 185-190). This is citation also finds support on unnumbered page 25 of the ‘078 provisional. In particular, the unbulleted paragraph on page 25 describes the UE sending to the network a UE1 report on a different set of uplink resources, such as PUCCH, PUSCH, etc. (i.e. the second UL channel). In the last bulleted point on page 25, the UE1 report may be sent via different resources based on a “1” or “0” provided by the network’s configuration in a DCI, RRC signal or MAC CE. As a result, the Examiner contends a prima facie obviousness rejection was provided in the Non-final Rejection and the Rule 111 Reply fails to persuasively demonstrate that Zhu is not entitled to an effective filing date that pre-dates the Application.
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 1, 3, 4, 7, 10-12, 14, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (WO 2020191717) (citations based on attached English translation) in view of Zhu (US 20250203620).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Wang teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor and a method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), comprising:
determining to switch to an uplink notification channel based on a serving cell condition (Wang, ¶93 – paging failure triggers selection of another coverage mode; Wang, ¶¶86-87 – UE selects extended coverage [i.e. switches from normal coverage] based on a cell selection criterion; Wang, ¶3 and figure 2 – UE is in normal coverage in area A and switches to “an extended coverage channel” when in area B); and
sending an indication on the uplink notification channel . . . the indication being configured to indicate that the WTRU is no longer reachable on a paging channel. Wang, figure 3 (step 101) and ¶¶81-83 or figure 9 (step 101b) and ¶162 (UE sends its mode preference information to the access node, which informs the access node that the UE is reachable via an extended coverage mode [i.e. not reachable via normal coverage mode]).
While Wang teaches a coverage enhancement mode consisting of repeated uplink transmissions (Wang, ¶3 – claimed “uplink coverage enhancements”), Wang does not explicitly teach (1) “identifying uplink notification channel configuration information that comprises an indication of a set of resources associated with the uplink notification channel, a set of uplink coverage enhancements associated with the uplink notification channel, and an identifier associated with the WTRU” or (2) a UE transmitting data “based on the uplink notification channel configuration information.” However, Zhu also teaches a UE transmitting an indicator for changing from a first uplink channel to a second uplink channel. Zhu, ¶156. The second uplink channel may be configured based on information provided by the network. Zhu, ¶¶159, 173, 177 (e.g. DCI). Regarding (1), the DCI can specify a UE ID/index (Zhu, ¶209), identify resources for the second uplink channel (Zhu, ¶210), and a MCS index for the second uplink channel. Zhu, ¶206. Regarding (2), the UE then transmits its report via the defined second UL channel. Zhu, ¶181 (last sentence) and ¶¶185-190 (examples of attributes defined for the second UL channel). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the network to define the extended coverage channel, taught by Wang, via the DCI, taught by Zhu, in order to ensure efficient UE-initiated reporting of a channel change. Zhu, ¶76.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the combination of Wang and Zhu also teaches receiving the uplink notification channel configuration information in a configuration message. Zhu, e.g. ¶¶206-210 (UE receives attributes of second uplink channel in a DCI).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combination of Wang and Zhu also teaches sending an uplink notification channel capability indication configured to indicate the WTRU's capability to support uplink notification channel communication (Wang, ¶82 – UE informs access node that it supports extended coverage via its mode preference information); and
in response to the uplink notification channel capability indication, receiving the uplink notification channel configuration information. Zhu, ¶¶163, 166, 181 (the network’s DCI is sent based on the UE’s capability report [i.e. Wang’s mode preference information]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combination of Wang and Zhu also teaches
applying the set of uplink coverage enhancements while transmitting on the uplink notification channel (Wang, ¶3 – “sending end that supports extended coverage, such as a terminal device or a base station, can repeatedly send data multiple times via an extended coverage channel under extended coverage”); and
identifying an uplink notification channel transmission occasion (Zhu, ¶178 – pre-configured PUCCH or PUSCH resources of the second UL channel for sending the UE’s report), wherein the indication configured to indicate that the WTRU is no longer reachable on the paging channel is sent during the uplink notification channel transmission occasion. Wang, figure 3 (step 101) and ¶¶81-83 or figure 9 (step 101b) and ¶162 (UE sends its mode preference information to the access node, which informs the access node that the UE is reachable via an extended coverage mode [i.e. not reachable via normal coverage mode]). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the periodic/semi-persistent resources, taught by Zhu, to transmit the mode preference information, taught by Wang, in order to provide different transmission occasions for uplink transmissions based on fixed rules in the system’s specification. Zhu, ¶¶161-162.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the combination of Wang and Zhu also teaches receive a downlink notification channel configuration indication that comprise an indication of a set of occasions associated with a downlink notification channel (Wang, ¶89 – UE receives extended coverage system message, which provides the configuration information of the downlink paging message; Wang, ¶91 – in one embodiment, the paging message is sent over the narrowband [i.e. a subset of the frequency occasions]); and
upon sending the indication on the uplink notification channel, monitor the downlink notification channel based on the configured set of occasions associated with the downlink notification channel. Wang, ¶88 (after the mode preference information in step 101, the UE monitors for a downlink paging message under the extended coverage mode [i.e. monitors the “extended coverage channel”]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Wang and Zhu also teaches wherein the switching to an uplink notification channel is determined based on at least one of: a failure to detect paging; a failure to detect a downlink reference signal; a number of detected downlink reference signal being less than a threshold value; a ratio of failed PDCCH vs. successful PDCCH receptions exceeding a threshold value; or a failure to identify a suitable cell. Wang, ¶¶85, 93 (if paging fails, another coverage mode is selected).
Claims 2, 6, 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhu (both of record) and further in view of Lei (US 20250358819).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the combination of Wang and Zhu teaches the WTRU of claim 1, the method of claim 12, a UE operating in idle mode (Wang, ¶¶85, 133 – during cell selection, the UE is in an idle state), and changing coverage modes based on a “failure on the paging channel.” Wang, ¶93. The combination does not explicitly teach “receiving an indication to operate in at least one of the idle or the inactive mode; and while operating in the at least one of the idle or the inactive mode, monitoring the paging channel for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), [and terminating a session] is determined in response to a PDCCH detection failure . . . ” However, Lei teaches the following:
receiving an indication to operate in at least one of the idle or the inactive mode (Lei, figure 5 – in step 505, the RRC release message triggers the UE to operate in RRC inactive mode in step 510); and
while operating in the at least one of the idle or the inactive mode, monitoring the paging channel for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (Lei, figure 5 – in step 515, the UE monitors a paging communication for an upcoming PDCCH in step 535), and
[terminating a session] is determined in response to a PDCCH detection failure. Lei, ¶175 (if a PDDCH is not received or decoded within the duration of a timer, the session is terminated by the UE); Lei, ¶176 (terminating the session may include selecting a different node).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to transition to a new coverage mode, as taught by the combination of Wang and Zhu, based on the failure to receive a PDCCH while in inactive mode, as taught by Lei, in order to conserve resources by freeing a resource previously allocated but will no longer because of a change in the channel quality.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wang and Zhu teaches the WTRU of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the UE configured to “receive a release message to operate in at least one of an idle or an inactive mode, wherein the uplink notification channel configuration information is received in the release message.” However, Lei teaches a UE receiving an RRC release message, which triggers the UE to operate in an inactive mode and an uplink configuration to be used by the UE is included in the RRC release communication. Lei, figure 5 (steps 505 and 510) and ¶86. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to receiving the uplink channel configuration attributes, taught by the combination of Wang and Zhu, within an RRC release message, as taught by Lei, in order to grant the UE resources for communication. Lei, ¶82.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Wang and Zhu teaches the WTRU of claim 1, the method of claim 12, and “wherein the indication configured to indicate that the WTRU is no longer reachable on the paging channel.” Wang, figure 3 (step 101) and ¶¶81-83 or figure 9 (step 101b) and ¶162 (UE sends its mode preference information to the access node, which informs the access node that the UE is reachable via an extended coverage mode [i.e. not reachable via normal coverage mode]). The combination of Wang and Zhu does not explicitly teach the mode preference information being “sent using the identifier associated with the WTRU.” However, Lei teaches an uplink message sent with a UE identifier. Lei, e.g. ¶¶89 or 107 (random access message or RRC connection request message from UE includes its identifier). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the identifier of the transmitting UE, as taught by Lei, within the mode preference information, transmitted by the combination of Wang and Zhu, in order to enable the network node to identify which user device is seeking communicative coupling with the network node.
Claims 5, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhu (both of record) and further in view of Phuyal (US 20220338159).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wang and Zhu teaches the WTRU of claim 1 and wherein the processor is further configured to:
send an uplink notification channel capability indication configured to indicate the WTRU's capability to support uplink notification channel communication (Wang, ¶82 - “the terminal device supporting the extended coverage may send the mode preference information to the access node”); and
in response to the uplink notification channel capability indication, receive downlink notification channel configuration information Wang, ¶¶88, 89 (after transmitting the mode preference information in step 101, receives the extended coverage system message from the access node),
wherein the downlink notification channel configuration information is configured to indicate a set of occasions associated with monitoring a downlink notification channel . . . Wang, ¶89 (UE receives extended coverage system message, which provides the configuration information of the downlink paging message); Wang, ¶91 (in one embodiment, the paging message is sent over the narrowband [i.e. a subset of the frequency occasions]).
The combination of Wang and Zhu does not explicitly teach a downlink communication indicates “at least notification alert characteristic.” However, Phuyal teaches a network device transmitting a pre-paging alert to the UE, which alerts the UE to an upcoming paging message. Phuyal, ¶133. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a pre-paging alert, as taught by Phuyal, within the extended coverage system message, taught by the combination of Wang and Zhu, in order to inform the UE of an upcoming downlink transmission when the channel conditions are poor. Id. at ¶133.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Wang and Zhu teaches the WTRU of claim 1 and the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly teach “determining whether to switch to an uplink notification channel based on at least one of: whether an uplink transmission has failed; a number of failed uplink transmissions; a number of failed uplink transmissions within a time period; whether a random access has failed; a number of failed random access attempts; or whether the WTRU has exceeded power ramping.” However, Phuyal teaches a UE declaring a paging failure after a threshold amount of uplink transmissions are attempted. Phuyal, ¶128. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to transition to the “extended coverage channel,” taught by the combination of Wang and Zhu, based on the paging failure, taught by Phuyal, in order to implement a technique to improve coverage and reception of the paging message. Phuyal, ¶133.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Jha, which addresses poor coverage for paging and Saha, in which the UE monitors a second pre-paging channel if paging fails on a first channel.
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights