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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/130,909 filed on 4/5/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/2024 has been 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).
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12096394 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations of the pending Application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 12096394 B2 with obvious wording variations. The following table compares claim 1 of pending Application with U.S. Patent No. 12096394 B2.
Pending Application
18801808
US 12096394 B2
1. A method performed by a terminal, the method comprising: transmitting, by the terminal via uplink wireless channel, a first uplink message, wherein the first uplink message comprises a time pattern information for Positioning Reference Signal (PRS); receiving, by the terminal via downlink wireless channel, a first downlink message, wherein the first downlink message comprises a PRS data, wherein the PRS data comprises a first identifier and one or more parameter sets for PRS resource set; receiving, by the terminal via downlink wireless channel, a second downlink message, wherein the second downlink message comprise a counter; and transmitting, by the terminal via uplink wireless channel, a second uplink message, wherein the second uplink message comprises the first identifier and a time difference between one or more Transmission Reception Points (TRPs), wherein the second uplink message is ciphered based on a specific security key, and wherein the specific security key is determined based on the counter indicated in the second downlink message; and a stored key.
1. A method performed by a terminal, the method comprising: receiving, by the terminal via a downlink wireless channel, a System Information Block1 (SIB1), the SIB1 comprising a first scheduling information and a second scheduling information;
acquiring, by the terminal, a System Information (SI) based at least in part on the first scheduling information and the second scheduling information, wherein the SI includes a positioning SIB, and the positioning SIB includes a second Positioning Reference Signal (PRS) data;
transmitting, by the terminal via an uplink wireless channel, a first uplink message, the first uplink message including a capability information related to PRS in RRC_CONNECTED;
transmitting, by the terminal via the uplink wireless channel, a second uplink message, the second uplink message including a capability information related to PRS in RRC_INACTIVE;
transmitting, by the terminal via the uplink wireless channel, a third uplink message, the third uplink message including a time pattern information for PRS;
receiving, by the terminal from the network-via the downlink wireless channel, a first downlink message, wherein the first downlink message includes a first PRS data, and the first PRS data includes a first identifier and one or more nr-DL-PRS-ResourceSet; and
transmitting, by the terminal via the uplink wireless channel, a fourth uplink message, the fourth uplink message comprising at least a time difference between one or more Transmission Reception Points (TRPs) and the first identifier,
wherein a first segment of the fourth uplink message is comprised in a first Medium Access Control (MAC) Service Data Unit (SDU),
wherein:
the first MAC SDU is multiplexed in a MAC Protocol Data Unit (PDU);
a second MAC SDU is multiplexed in the MAC PDU; and
the second MAC SDU comprises a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message to request RRC connection resumption, and
wherein:
the second MAC SDU is not ciphered; and
the first MAC SDU is ciphered based on a security key.
6. The method of claim 1,
wherein the security key is determined based on a count indicated in a downlink message instructing state transition to RRC_INACTIVE state.
As shown in table above, claim 1 of US 12096394 B2 (underlined portions) cover most of the claim 1 limitations of pending Application, except the bolded portions. However, claims 6 of US 12096394 B2 teaches the security key is determined based on a count indicated in a downlink message instructing state transition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the pending Application and US 12096394 B2 are similar in scope, thus they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The following table compares the remaining claims:
Pending Application
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
15
US 12096394 B2
9
10
4
1
8
8
8
1
17
Both the pending application and US 12096394 B2 address terminal-side wireless positioning using PRS signaling in modern cellular networks, especially in the context of RRC_CONNECTED and RRC_INACTIVE operation. They both disclose a general idea of the terminal receiving network-provided PRS configurations, transmissions of PRS-related capability or timing information, and the reporting of a time difference between transmission reception points (TRPs) as part of a positioning procedure. The pending application adds more detail about counter-based security and paging/small-data handling, but it still is in the same technical area as the earlier patent, which is secure PRS-based positioning signaling for a wireless terminal.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maheshwari et al. (US 20180343132), in view of Chen (CN110913438 B), and Cha (KR 20200087720 A).
Regarding claim(s) 1, Maheshwari teaches the limitation:
“A method performed by a terminal, the method comprising: transmitting, by the terminal via uplink wireless channel, a first uplink message, wherein the first uplink message comprises a time pattern information for Positioning Reference Signal (PRS)” ([0031], mobile device may obtain positioning assistance data that indicates timing and frequency channels of locally transmitted PRS positioning occasions. This mobile device operating (in a half-duplex mode) may be able to schedule its receiver to acquire applicable PRS positioning occasions while transmitting messages in an uplink channel based, at least in part, on positioning assistance data indicative of timing of these positioning occasions. Based, at least in part, on positioning assistance data, a mobile device may schedule its receiver to acquire PRS positioning occasions while transmitting uplink messages by determining frequency channels on which positioning occasions are to be transmitted and tuning the receiver to the determined frequency channels during times that PRS positioning occasions are expected).
Additionally, Maheshwari also teaches the limitation: “receiving, by the terminal via downlink wireless channel, a first downlink message, wherein the first downlink message comprises a PRS data, wherein the PRS data comprises a first identifier and one or more parameter sets for PRS resource set” ([0040], mobile device 102 may, for example, receive positioning assistance data (e.g., OTDOA, AFLT assistance data, etc.) for one or more positioning operations from servers 116, 118, and/or 120. At times, positioning assistance data may include, for example, locations, identities, orientations, PRS configurations, etc. of one or more local transceivers 112, base station transceivers 108, etc. ([0040]).
Maheshwari does not teach the limitation(s) of “--receiving, by the terminal via downlink wireless channel, a second downlink message, wherein the second downlink message comprise a counter;”
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Chen teaches the limitations: “--receiving, by the terminal via downlink wireless channel, a second downlink message, wherein the second downlink message comprise a counter” (Translated from foreign document Chen: [Page 19 Paragraphs 2 and 5], terminal receives from a base station an NCC (next hop chaining counter, equivalent to a counter or count value) and a NASC as part of a reestablishment message sent via downlink. Paragraph 2 discloses that NASC may include a NAS COUNT value, which is also equivalent to a counter or a count value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal method from Maheshwari in view of the sending of the downlink counter as taught by Chen, in order to encrypt messages by receiving counter values.
Maheshwari does not teach the limitation of “—wherein the second uplink message is ciphered based on a specific security key, and wherein the specific security key is determined based on: the counter indicated in the second downlink message; and a stored key”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Chen further teaches: “wherein the second uplink message is ciphered based on a specific security key (Translated from foreign document Chen: [Page 20 Paragraph 8], the terminal sends a reestablishment completion message (uplink message) to the base station. This uplink message to the base station is also encrypted by a key (KgNB*)), and wherein the specific security key is determined based on: the counter indicated in the second downlink message; and a stored key” (Translated from foreign document Chen: [Page 7 Paragraph 3, Page 20 Paragraphs 6-7]: terminal is able to obtain the key KgNB* according to NH (NH is another key, specifically a first layer access key) and a received NCC (counter)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maheshwari in view of the counter value and encryption features of Chen, for the advantage of providing security of transmitted messages between the BS and terminal using key derivation based on NCC and a previous key.
The combination of Maheshwari and Chen does not teach the limitation: “—and transmitting, by the terminal via uplink wireless channel, a second uplink message, wherein the second uplink message comprises the first identifier and a time difference between one or more Transmission Reception Points (TRPs)”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Cha teaches the limitation:
“--transmitting, by the terminal via uplink wireless channel, a second uplink message, wherein the second uplink message comprises the first identifier and a time difference between one or more Transmission Reception Points (TRPs)” (Translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 3 Paragraphs 3 and 6], terminal sends a report (uplink) to the location server, as a result of UE performing measurement (which may include Rx-Tx time difference) for PRS resources. The terminal reports to the server a PRS resource set ID as well. [Page 23 Paragraphs 12 to 16 and Page 24 Paragraphs 1 to 2] defines a Rx-Tx time difference as being used to calculate the E-CID positioning of reference TPs / TRPs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari and Chen in view of the identifier and time difference of Cha for the advantage of efficiently reporting a position of a terminal or UE by sending uplink identifiers and time differences.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Maheshwari and Chen does not teach the limitation of “wherein each of the one or more parameter sets for PRS resource set comprises one or more parameter sets for PRS resource”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Cha teaches the limitation of “wherein each of the one or more parameter sets for PRS resource set comprises one or more parameter sets for PRS resource” (Translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 3 Paragraph 4], all PRS resources may be part of a PRS resource set when transmitted in one PRS block).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maheshwari and Chen in view of the teachings of Cha in order to provide a hierarchal configuration structure that allows parameters to be tied with individual PRS resources that are nested in a PRS resource set.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Maheshwari and Chen does not teach the limitation of “wherein each of the one or more parameter sets for PRS resource comprises: a parameter for code sequence; and a parameter for starting slot.”
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Cha teaches the limitation “wherein each of the one or more parameter sets for PRS resource comprises: a parameter for code sequence (Translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 3 Paragraph 6], PRS resources may be transmitted in sequence, for example PRS resources #00 to #03. This is equivalent to a code sequence); and a parameter for starting slot” (Translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 19 Paragraphs 5-8], n_s may be a slot number relating to sending PRS data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari and Chen in view of the code sequence and starting slot of Cha in order to provide more options in configuring PRS resources by adding the ability to configure starting slot and sequence settings.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Maheshwari and Chen teaches the limitation of “wherein the time difference between one or more TRPs is measured (translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 3 Paragraphs 3-4], a Rx-Tx time difference is used to measure position of a terminal) based on the PRS data in RRC_INACTIVE”
However, Cha further teaches the limitation:
“wherein the time difference between one or more TRPs is measured (translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 3 Paragraphs 3-4], a Rx-Tx time difference is used to measure position of a terminal) based on the PRS data in RRC_INACTIVE” (translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 18, Paragraph 3] discloses that all normal terminal methods, including measuring time difference (Page 3 Paragraph 3) and taking PRS data (Page 2 Paragraph 5) may be performed while DRX (DRX is a technology to reduce power consumption of the UE in the RRC_idle mode or RRC_inactive mode in the NR system) is operating, which itself may be performed in RRC_INACTIVE state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maheshwari and Chen in view of the time difference of Cha, for the advantage of determining positioning of a terminal using time differences measured from TRPs.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Maheshwari and Chen do not teach the limitation of “acquiring, by the terminal via downlink wireless channel, before transmitting the first uplink message: a first system information based on a first scheduling window; and a second system information based on a second scheduling window”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Cha further teaches:
“--acquiring, by the terminal via downlink wireless channel, before transmitting the first uplink message: a first system information based on a first scheduling window; and a second system information based on a second scheduling window” (Translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 24 Paragraph 6, 10-11 to Page 25 Paragraph 1], UE performs system information acquisition via SSB. Such information may be acquired in bursts resulting in different time windows (may range from 5 m/s to 160 m/s) corresponding to the acquiring of different types of system information, such as time information and remaining system information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maheshwari and Chen in view of the uplink message as taught by Cha for the advantage of being able to efficiently and quickly send data by transmitting them at different times.
Regarding claim(s) 15, the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Cha additionally teaches:
“a transceiver configured to transmit and receive a signal” (translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 38 Paragraph 7], transceivers 106),
“a controller configured to control the transceiver” (translated from foreign document Cha: [Page 38 Paragraph 7], processor 102).
Claim 6 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Maheshwari et al. (US 20180343132), Chen (CN110913438 B), and Cha (KR 20200087720 A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chai (WO 2015096064 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, and Cha do not teach the limitation of “wherein the terminal: reacquires the first system information after a specific time duration elapse since the first system information was received”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Chai teaches “wherein the terminal: reacquires the first system information after a specific time duration elapse since the first system information was received” (Translated from foreign document Chai: [Page 21 Paragraph 7], UE can reacquire a system information after an indication that said information remains unchanged for a predetermined time duration. [Page 15 Paragraph 4] discloses that there may be multiple system information, therefore the reacquiring of system information based on a time duration can be applied to any piece of the numerous system information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Maheshwari, Chen and Cha in view of the time duration of Chai, for the advantage of ensuring that a terminal receives the information and avoiding missed transmissions.
Claim 7 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Maheshwari et al. (US 20180343132), Chen (CN110913438 B), Cha (KR 20200087720 A), Chai (WO 2015096064 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shrestha (US 20210251012A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha do not teach the limitations of “the specific time duration is 3 hours”, and “the specific time point is indicated in the second system information based on universal time”.
However, Chai teaches “the specific time duration is 3 hours” (Translated from foreign document Chai: [Page 32 Paragraph 8], system information is reacquired by the UE after 3 hours). The combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha and Chai does not specifically teach the limitations of “the specific time point is indicated in the second system information based on universal time”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Shrestha teaches “the specific time point is indicated in the second system information based on universal time” ([0031] and [0100], an indication of whether the cell is using coordinated universal time for SFN timing (SFNs, or system frame numbers are time points for sending / receiving data) is included in a system info message, thus it is taught that the utilization of UTC is possible when it comes to expressing SFNs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha and Chai in view of the time point of Shrestha, for the advantage of ensuring that a terminal receives the information and avoiding missed transmissions.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Maheshwari et al. (US 20180343132), Chen (CN110913438 B), and Cha (KR 20200087720 A) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Terry (US 20100272017 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Maheshwari, Chen and Cha do not teach the limitations: “--performing by the terminal cell selection after reception of the second downlink message”, and
“--performing by the terminal a system information reception; and performing by the terminal a paging message reception”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Terry teaches the limitation:
“--performing by the terminal cell selection after reception of the second downlink message” ([0059-0060], WTRU (which according to [0023], is equivalent to a wireless device or a terminal) may start searching for a different cell / carrier according to a value of a parameter intraCellReselection that is included in a received LTE-A SI broadcast via [0011] a downlink anchor carrier. [0065] All WTRUs receive SI information from the anchor carrier it sits on).
Terry additionally teaches the limitations: “--performing by the terminal a system information reception ([0011], WTRU processes system information); and performing by the terminal a paging message reception” ([0106], WTRU decodes and processes SI-change parameters included in paging message content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari, Chen and Cha in view of the teachings of Terry, for the advantage of maintaining network connectivity by allowing the UE to find a new suitable cell when necessary.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Maheshwari, Chen and Cha do not teach the limitation of “wherein the system information reception is performed based on a first Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI)“.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Terry teaches “wherein the system information reception is performed based on a first Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI)” ([0070], an RNTI is checked before performing SI reception on a joint broadcast channel)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari, Cha, and Chen in view of the RNTI feature of Terry for the advantage of increasing efficiency by being able to identify and receive appropriate SI transmissions while avoiding unnecessary decoding of unrelated downlink transmissions.
Claim 10 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Maheshwari et al. (US 20180343132), Chen (CN110913438 B), Cha (KR 20200087720 A), and Terry (US 20100272017 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Turtinen (US 20240090063 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha and Terry do not teach the limitation of “wherein the second downlink message further comprises: a full Inactive-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (I-RNTI); and a short I-RNTI“.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Turtinen teaches “wherein the second downlink message further comprises: a full Inactive-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (I-RNTI); and a short I-RNTI“ ([0047], second device 120 serves a first device 110, equivalent to a base station serving a UE. Second device 120 may transmit a configuration to the device (aka via downlink) that comprises of an NCC (counter), and I-RNTI (both full and short versions)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha and Terry in view of the I-RNTIs of Turtinen for the advantage of allowing a network to more quickly identify suitable UEs by looking for both full and short I-RNTIs.
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Maheshwari et al. (US 20180343132), Chen (CN110913438 B), Cha (KR 20200087720 A), Terry (US 20100272017 A1), Turtinen (US 20240090063 A1), and further in view of Da Silva (US 12317224 B2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha, Terry and Turtinen do not teach the limitation of “wherein the terminal performs the paging message reception based on the full I-RNTI“.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Da Silva teaches “wherein the terminal performs the paging message reception based on the full I-RNTI“ ([Column 3 Lines 65-67 and Column 4, Lines 1-15], UE receives a paging message from the network. UE compares its full I-RNTI with the UE identity that is included in the received paging message; thus, the reception of paging messages is based on a full I-RNTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha, Terry and Turtinen in view of the I-RNTIs of Da Silva for the advantage of allowing a network to more quickly identify the most suitable UEs, by having them look for a specific I-RNTI.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha, Terry and Turtinen do not teach the limitations of “the terminal transmits a third uplink message in case that the paging message is received”, and “the third uplink message is to request connection resumption”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Da Silva teaches the limitations of “the terminal transmits a third uplink message in case that the paging message is received” (Column 5, Lines 15, 47-50 and Fig. 5, after the paging is received, the UE sends an RRC Resume Request message to the network (uplink)), and “the third uplink message is to request connection resumption” (Fig. 5, after the paging is received, the UE sends an RRC Resume Request message to the network (uplink)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha, Terry and Turtinen in view of the uplink connection resumption message of Da Silva for the advantage of allowing a terminal to maintain more stable connectivity with a network by being able to resume connections after getting a paging message.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Maheshwari et al. (US 20180343132), Chen (CN110913438 B), and Cha (KR 20200087720 A) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei (VN 202205945 A).
The combination of Maheshwari, Cha, and Chen does not teach the limitation of “wherein the second downlink message further comprises small data transfer configuration”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Wei teaches the limitation of “wherein the second downlink message further comprises small data transfer configuration” (translated from foreign document Wei: [Page 17 Paragraph 8 to Page 18 Paragraph 1], UE receives (downlink) an RRCRelease message, that may contain small data transfer configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari, Chen and Cha with the second downlink message of Wei for the advantage of being able to further configure PRS related data.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Maheshwari et al. (US 20180343132), Chen (CN110913438 B), Cha (KR 20200087720 A), and Wei (VN 202205945 A) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shih (CN 202110778841 A).
The combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha and Wei does not teach the limitation of “the second uplink message is transmitted based on the small data transfer configuration and without state transition to RRC_CONNECTED state”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Shih teaches the limitation of “the second uplink message is transmitted based on the small data transfer configuration and without state transition to RRC_CONNECTED state” (Translated from foreign document Shih: [Page 29 Paragraphs 2-3], small data transfer allows the UE to transfer data (can be uplink) without having to transition directly to RRC_Connected) [Page 2, Paragraph 6], SDT is also pre-configured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Maheshwari, Chen, Cha, and Wei in view of the second downlink message of Shih for the advantage of being able to save time and increase efficiency of terminals by not having to directly transition to RRC_Connected in order to transmit data or messages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Yuwen Pan, can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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 HUY DINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights