DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 07/31/2024.
Claims 1-11, 13, 19, 24--27, 33, and 35-36 are pending.
Claims 12, 14-18, 20-23, 28-32, and 34 are cancelled.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HORI et al. (US 2023/0396367).
Regarding claim 1, HORI discloses a method of operating a user equipment, UE, of a communications network, the method comprising:
receiving a first signal from a network node of the communications network [see Fig. 12, ¶ 217; Step S1202, receives the MBS configuration information message/(first signal) from gNB 108];
determining a first communication parameter from the first signal [see Fig. 12, ¶ 23; Step S1204, determine whether the parameter related to the COUNT is included in the MBS configuration information message received in Step S1202 for the MBS session of interest]; and
receiving multicast radio bearer, MRB, communications from the network node using the first communication parameter via a first MRB [see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 242-256; perform the MRB establishment processing by using configuration information including a part or all of default configuration information related to MRB establishment or a configuration received from the base station].
Regarding claim 2, HORI discloses the method of claim 1.
HORI further discloses wherein receiving the first signal comprises receiving a first packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, protocol data unit, PDU, from the network node [see Fig. 13, ¶ 277; UE 122 may maintain the state variable indicating the COUNT value of the first PDCP PDU out of the PDCP SDUs that are to be received].
Regarding claim 3, HORI discloses the method of claim 1.
HORI further discloses wherein receiving the first signal comprises receiving the first signal prior to receiving a first packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, protocol data unit, PDU from the network node [see Fig. 13, ¶¶ 276-277; wherein receiving is maintaining the state variable indicating the COUNT value of the first PDCP PDU incrementing the sequence number received first by 1].
Regarding claim 4, HORI discloses the method of claim 3.
HORI further discloses wherein receiving the first signal further comprises receiving the first signal as part of a procedure performed to transition the UE from an inactive state to a connected state [see Fig. 12, ¶ 237; wherein receiving the first signal further comprises receiving the first signal as part of a procedure performed to transition the UE from an RRC_INACTIVE state to a RRC_CONNECTED state].
Regarding claim 6, HORI discloses the method of claim 1.
HORI further discloses wherein the method comprises: transitioning from an inactive state to a connected state [see Fig. 12, ¶ 237; wherein the UE 122 may transition from the RRC_IDLE state or the RRC_INACTIVE state to the RRC_CONNECTED state].
Regarding claim 9, HORI discloses the method of claim 6.
HORI further discloses wherein the inactive state comprises a radio resource control, RRC, inactive state, wherein the connected state comprises an RRC connected state, and wherein the MRB communications comprise at least one of: multicast MRB communications and broadcast MRB communications [see ¶ 242; the MRB establishment processing may be performed in a case that the UE 122 is in the RRC_IDLE state, may be performed in a case that the UE 122 is in the RRC_INACTIVE state, or may be performed in a case that the UE 122 is in the RRC_CONNECTED state].
Regarding claim 10, HORI discloses the method of claim 1.
HORI further discloses method of claim 1, wherein the first communication parameter comprises a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, state variable including at least one of: a first RX_NEXT variable and a first RX_DELIV variable [see ¶¶ 240, 276, 281; Note that the state variable indicating the COUNT value of the PDCP SDU expected to be received next may be a state variable referred to as RX_NEXT].
Regarding claims 19, 24, and 26, the claims recite a method of operating a network node of a communications network to perform the method of operating a user equipment, UE, of a communications network recited as in claims 1, 6, and 9 respectively; therefore, claims 19, 24, and 26 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 1, 6, and 9 respectively.
Regarding claim 33, the claims recite a user equipment, UE, operating in a communications network, the UE comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory coupled to the processing circuitry [¶ ; ] and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the UE to perform the method of operating a user equipment, UE, of a communications network recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 33 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 35, the claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code to be executed by processing circuitry to perform the method of operating a user equipment, UE, of a communications network recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 35 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 36, the claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code to be executed by processing circuitry to perform the method of operating a user equipment, UE, of a communications network recited as in claim 19; therefore, claim 36 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 19.
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 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) 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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over HORI et al. (US 2023/0396367) in view of Yao et al. (US 2022//0329543).
Regarding claim 5, HORI discloses the method of claim 3
HORI further discloses wherein determining the first communication parameter comprises determining an expected sequence number associated with the MRB communications [see ¶ 236; determines that the parameter related to COUNT is included in the received MBS configuration information message to set an initial value of the sequence number part of the state variable indicating the COUNT value of the PDCP SDU expected to be received next as a first value (see ¶ 273)], and wherein receiving the MRB communications comprises receiving the first PDCP PDU from the network node [see ¶ 292; the point-to-multipoint reception of the MBS data may be referred to as the MRB that receives the MBS using point-to-multipoint connection].
HORI does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: determining whether the UE failed to receive a second PDCP PDU from the network node by comparing a sequence number associated with the first PDCP PDU and the expected sequence number.
However, Yao discloses
determining whether the UE failed to receive a second PDCP PDU from the network node by comparing a sequence number associated with the first PDCP PDU and the expected sequence number [see ¶ 388; the PDCP layer of the first device compares a sequence number of the compressed data packet 5 with the sequence number of the data packet 7, the first device determines that the compressed data packet 5 is a data packet that has been compressed before the buffer is reset, and the error is bound to occur during decompression of the compressed data packet 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “determining whether the UE failed to receive a second PDCP PDU from the network node by comparing a sequence number associated with the first PDCP PDU and the expected sequence number” as taught by Yao in the system of HORI, so that it would to ensure that the receive end implements correct decompression [see Yao; ¶ 4].
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over HORI et al. (US 2023/0396367) in view of SAILY et al. (US 2021/0378053).
Regarding claim 7, HORI discloses the method of claim 6.
HORI further discloses wherein: the MRB communications are second MRB communications; transitioning from an inactive state to a connected state comprises transitioning from an inactive state to a second instance of a connected state [see ¶¶ 237, 239; the UE 122 may determine that transition to the RRC_CONNECTED state]; and the method further comprises:
receiving first MRB communications from the network node while the UE is in a first instance of the connected state [see ¶ 242; the MRB establishment processing is triggered based on that an RRC message indicating establishment of the MRB is received or has been received from the gNB 108 via the DCCH in a case that the UE 112 is in the RRC_CONNECTED state].
HORI does not explicitly disclose subsequent to receiving the first MRB communications, transitioning from the first instance of the connected state to the inactive state.
However, SAILY discloses
subsequent to receiving the first MRB communications, transitioning from the first instance of the connected state to the inactive state [see ¶¶ 56, 60; the UE to transition from connected state to inactive state, so that the UE may receive and/or continue receiving the multicast data associated with the RMA via the multicast DRB (data radio bearer)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “subsequent to receiving the first MRB communications, transitioning from the first instance of the connected state to the inactive state” as taught by SAILY in the system of HORI, so that it would to provide efficiently connect the massive Internet of Things (IoT), and may offer new types of mission-critical services. BSs in 5G/NR may be referred to as gNBs [see SAILY; ¶ 4].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over HORI et al. (US 2023/0396367) in view of SAILY et al. (US 2021/0378053), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2023/0134356.
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of HORI and SAILY discloses the method of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein transitioning from the first instance of the connected state to the inactive state comprises:
initializing the first communication parameter to a predetermined value; or avoiding initialization of the first communication parameter.
However, Zhang discloses wherein transitioning from the first instance of the connected state to the inactive state comprises:
initializing the first communication parameter to a predetermined value; or avoiding initialization of the first communication parameter [see ¶¶ 5, 21, 36; where the UE initializes the PDCP state variables for multicast based on configurations received from the wireless network].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein transitioning from the first instance of the connected state to the inactive state comprises: initializing the first communication parameter to a predetermined value; or avoiding initialization of the first communication parameter” as taught by Zhang in the combined system of HORI and SAILY, so that it would to provide improvements and enhancements to initialize PDCP state variables for multicast services [see Zhang; ¶ 4].
Claims 11, 13, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over HORI et al. (US 2023/0396367) in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0430980) (having earlier priority date of US-Provisional-Application US 63/270188.
Regarding claim 11 HORI discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: transitioning from a first state in which the UE is configured to communicate with the network node via the first MRB to a second state in which the UE is configured to communicate with the network node via a second MRB that is different than the first MRB; and determining a second communication parameter associated with communicating with the network node via the second MRB based on the first communication parameter.
However, Wu discloses
further comprising: transitioning from a first state in which the UE is configured to communicate with the network node via the first MRB to a second state in which the UE is configured to communicate with the network node via a second MRB that is different than the first MRB [see Fig. 9A, ¶ 129; At block 912, the UE 102 continues to receive MBS data via the second MRB, while operating in the idle state/second state (e.g., event 532 of FIG. 5); and determining a second communication parameter associated with communicating with the network node via the second MRB based on the first communication parameter [see Fig. 10B, ¶ 135; determines whether the MBS configuration parameters are (or were) or are not (or were not) for receiving a broadcast MBS session; if the MBS configuration parameters are (or were) used for receiving a broadcast MBS session, then the flow continues to block 1010 where the UE 102 retains the MBS configuration parameters in response to transitioning to the idle state].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “further comprising: transitioning from a first state in which the UE is configured to communicate with the network node via the first MRB to a second state in which the UE is configured to communicate with the network node via a second MRB that is different than the first MRB; and determining a second communication parameter associated with communicating with the network node via the second MRB based on the first communication parameter” as taught by Wu in the system of HORI, so that it would to allows the UE to more quickly transition back to the RRC_CONNECTED state due to Radio Access Network (RAN)-level base station coordination and RAN paging procedures [see Wu; ¶ 4].
Regarding claim 13, the combined system of HORI and SAILY discloses the method of claim 11.
HORI further discloses wherein determining the second communication parameters comprises: determining a first sequence number associated with the first MRB [see ¶ 236; the UE 122 determines that the parameter related to COUNT is included in the received MBS configuration information message for the MBS session of interest]; and
determining a second sequence number associated with the second MRB based on the first sequence number [see ¶ 236; the RRC of the UE 122 may perform processing so that the PDCP entity of the MRB of the UE 122 can acquire the COUNT value in accordance with the parameter related to COUNT].
Conclusion
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, Yoo et al. (US 2011/0235601) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 2, 12, 21 and claim 30 for limitation “modifying interference management operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights