Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 09/13/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. Pub. No.: US 2021/0037496 A1 in view of Lee et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0148189 A1.
Claim 1
Ryu discloses a method (fig. 1-34 depicts UE for registering in access network) for use in a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (UE in fig. 1 & 3), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
518
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
transmitting a first request message (first registration request in fig. 29) including indication information that indicates the WTRU supports receiving a registration area (RA) set (the first zone identity in fig. 29 and par. 0217 describes that a requestion area may comprise TA1 and TA2);
receiving a first response message including RA set information (fig. 29, first registration accept with a dedicated zone configuration parameter, confirmation registration area and see par. 0247), wherein the RA set information includes information about two or more RAs within an RA set (par. 0217 and registration area in fig. 21 includes two or more TA), wherein each RA is associated with one or more tracking areas (par. 0217, registration area 1 includes at least a set of TA 1-2), wherein each tracking area is associated with a tracking area identity (par. 0259, the registration area of the wireless device stored in the AMF includes a list of tracing area identities);
detecting that the WTRU has moved from a first tracking area to a second tracking area (location change detection in fig. 29);
determining that the first tracking area and the second tracking area are both part of the RA set (par. 0216 and fig. 21, Cell 1 and Cell 2 both broadcast TA1, that the first tracking area and the second tracking area are parts of different RAs (fig. 21 depicts different tracking areas in registration areas 1-2 but overlapped areas are both part of the RA set);
transmitting, based on the determination, a second request message (second registration request in fig. 29); and
receiving a second response message (second registration accept in fig. 29).
Although Ryu does not disclose: “wherein each RA is associated with a probability value; the second tracking area is part of an RA that is associated with a probability value that is less than a threshold”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to discuss the obviousness of the claim limitation “wherein each RA is associated with a probability value”, initially, it’s important to note that claim does not specifically define what the probability value is. In accordance with MPEP 2111, “the probability value” is reasonably interpreted as “a service available probability” associated with UE position or tracking area or registration area. In particular, Lee teaches a service availability for UE in 5G system associated with its location and the associated parameters (Table 1 in par. 0121 for 99% service availability; see equations 1-8 and par. 0135-0159, the probability values can be considered as values of accuracy, distance, service availability and latency in Table 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “the second tracking area is part of an RA that is associated with a probability value that is less than a threshold”, again, it’s important to note that comparing a probability value to a threshold is reasonably interpreted as finding an optimum value. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Alternatively, See MPEP 2111.4 II Contingent Limitations.
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 geographical zone-based registration area tracking of Ryu by providing low-latency location information service in wireless communication system as taught in Lee to obtain the claimed invention. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment a location system to update the location configuration so that the location accuracy and latency could have enhanced user’s experience for location services as suggested in par. 0007-0010 of Lee.
Claim 2
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each RA is associated with an RA Identity (Ryu, tracking area identity TAI in par. 0230 and geographic zone identity to inform a registration area in par. 0236 and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 3
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold is received from a network in a broadcast message (Ryu, cells broadcast TA information in fig. 21 and par. 0216; Lee, LMC location information broadcasted in par. 0116 and DRX cycled broadcast in par. 0168 and see Table 1, confidence level or accuracy or availability and distance numbers can be considered as threshold as explained in par. 0211; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 4
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second request message is transmitted based on a further determination that the second tracking area is associated with a power mode setting of the WTRU (since claim does not specifically define what are involved and what are required to be associated with a power mode, the combination of Ryu and Lee would have rendered the claim obvious because TA 2 or Registration 2 in fig. 21 of Ryu would be associated with DRX configuration depicted in fig. 6-8).
Claim 5
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second request message is transmitted based on a further determination that the second tracking area is associated with a discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle size configuration of the WTRU (Ryu, TA 2 and registration area 2 in fig. 21; Lee, DRX cycle depicted in fig. 6-7; for these reasons, the one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim; see MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 6
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second request message is transmitted based on a further determination that the second tracking area is associated with an RA identity that is broadcast by the network (Ryu, fig. 21 and par. 0216, cells broadcast TA1 associated with registration area; Lee, location information broadcasted to a UE; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 7
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second request message is transmitted based on a further determination that the second tracking area is not associated with an RA identity that is broadcast by the network (Ryu, assume fig. 29 & fig. 21, consider after updating the first zone identity UE detects location change in fig. 29 and receives TA identity broadcasted by the cell as depicted in fig. 21, then UE may compare TA and the first registration zone identity that they are different; Lee, fig. 8-13; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 8
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second request message is transmitted based on a further determination that second tracking area is associated with a probability value that is broadcast by the network (Ryu, second registration identity in fig. 21 & 29; Lee, par. 0121, location service parameters such as distance, accuracy, availability; with these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143,KSR Exemplary Rationales F-G).
Claim 9
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second request message is transmitted based on a further determination that policy information received by the WTRU indicates that the WTRU should trigger a mobility registration update when the WTRU moves to the second tracking area (Ryu, in fig. 29, UE sends second registration request after detecting location change in fig. 29 and see par. 0248 for periodic registration time as the network policies; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 10
Ryu, in view of Lee, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first request message is a non-access-stratum mobility management (NAS-MM) message (Ryu, NAS signaling in fig. 5-8 and par. 0071-0072 & 0075 and see par. 0114 for NAS registration; Lee, NAS message in fig. 8 and par. 0151, 0179; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 11-20
PNG
media_image3.png
552
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-20 are device claims corresponding to method claims 1-20. All of the limitations in claims 11-20 are found reciting the structures for the same scopes of the respective limitations of claim 11-20. Accordingly, claims 11-20 are considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 1-20 respectively set forth above.
Additionally, Ryu discloses a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (UE in fig. 1, 3 & 21 & 29) comprising: a transceiver (communication interface 320 in fig. 3) operatively coupled to a processor (in fig. 3, processor 318 coupled to communication interface 320 to make UE for performing the steps in fig. 21 & 29).
Contact Information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights