DETAILED ACTION
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
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 USC 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the application file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on September 18, 2024 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears claim 27 should depend from “claim 26”, not claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 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 a nonstatutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 12-16, 18-23 and 25-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 16-19 of U.S. Patent 11,477,635. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Please see the following table for the claim 12 analysis (and similarly applied to claims 19 and 26):
18/889,050
11,477,635
Claim Interpretation
12.A method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network entity of the wireless network, an inquiry of UE capability information of the UE; and
transmitting, to the network entity of the wireless network, the UE capability information of the UE,
wherein the UE capability information comprises radio capability information of the UE, and at least one of: sensor capability information of at least one sensor associated with the UE, or sensor type information indicating a type of the at least one sensor associated with the UE, and wherein the radio capability information comprises
at least one of: one or more access stratum release parameters, one or more data radio bearer parameters, one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) parameters, one or more radio link control (RLC) parameters, one or more medium access control (MAC) parameters, one or more physical layer parameters, or one or more radio frequency (RF) parameters.
1.A method for identifying at least one sensor on at least one user equipment connected to a wireless network, the method comprising: transmitting, by a mobile management entity (MME), an initial context setup request for at least one user equipment, to a network entity of the wireless network;
transmitting, by the network entity of the wireless network, a capability enquiry to the at least one user equipment based on the initial context setup request received from the MME; receiving, at the network entity of the wireless network, capability information from the at least one user equipment in response to the capability enquiry received from the network entity of the wireless network,
wherein the capability information comprises sensor capability information of the at least one user equipment; and transmitting, by the network entity of the wireless network, the capability information of the at least one user equipment to the MME.
Claim 3 recites:
receiving, at the network entity of the wireless network, a radio capability information from the at least one user equipment in response to the capability enquiry received from the network entity of the wireless network, the radio capability information comprises at least one of Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) parameters, Radio link control (RLC) parameters, Medium access control (MAC) parameters, Physical (Phy) layer-parameters, and Radio Frequency (RF) parameters; and transmitting, by the network entity of the wireless network, the radio capability information of the at least one user equipment to the MME; and receiving sensor data at the eNodeB (eNB) over an RRC connection
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader, but obvious variant of 11,477,635. More specifically, the only difference is that the present application is from the UE’s perspective and 11,477,635 is from the network’s perspective.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the UE’s perspective into the network’s perspective in order to provide efficient communication between all devices within a network.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/889,050
11,477,635
Claim Interpretation
13.The method of claim 12, wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of: a base station, a core network, a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, or a radio network controller.
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wireless network is an NB-IoT network and the network entity of the wireless network is an eNodeB (eNB).
Obvious variant. This analysis is similar to claims 20 and 27. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the UE’s perspective into the network’s perspective in order to provide efficient communication between all devices within a network.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the network entity of the wireless network is a base station, and the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is received from a core network via the base station.
Claims 1 and 2:
the network entity of the wireless network is an eNodeB (eNB) and transmitting, by the network entity of the wireless network, the capability information of the at least one user equipment to the MME.
Obvious variant. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 21 and 28. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the UE’s perspective into the network’s perspective in order to provide efficient communication between all devices within a network.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the at least one of: the sensor capability information, or the sensor type information, included in the UE capability information and transmitted to the network entity is provided to the core network by the network entity.
9. The method of claim 1 wherein when receiving, at the network entity of the wireless network, capability information from the at least one user equipment in response to the capability enquiry received from the network entity of the wireless network, the capability information further comprises sensor type information indicating the type or types of sensor(s) available at the user equipment for reporting sensor data to via the network entity to the MME.
Essentially the same. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 22 and 29.
16. The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving, from the network entity, an inquiry for data collected at the UE by the at least one sensor associated with the UE.
17. The method of claim 16 wherein the MME after receipt of capability information regarding said least one user equipment and regarding the type of sensor(s) present at the user equipment, transmitting an inquiry for data collected by the specific type(s) of sensor(s) present at the user equipment.
Essentially the same. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 23 and 30.
18. The method of claim 12, wherein the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is based on an initial context setup request received by the network entity from a core network.
From claim 1:
transmitting, by a mobile management entity (MME), an initial context setup request for at least one user equipment
Essentially the same. This analysis is similarly applied to claim 25.
Claims 12-16, 18-23 and 25-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent 12,127,298. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Please see the following table for the claim 12 analysis (and similarly applied to claims 19 and 26):
18/889,050
12,127,298
Claim Interpretation
12.A method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network entity of the wireless network, an inquiry of UE capability information of the UE; and
transmitting, to the network entity of the wireless network, the UE capability information of the UE,
wherein the UE capability information comprises radio capability information of the UE, and at least one of: sensor capability information of at least one sensor associated with the UE, or sensor type information indicating a type of the at least one sensor associated with the UE, and wherein the radio capability information comprises at least one of: one or more access stratum release parameters, one or more data radio bearer parameters, one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) parameters, one or more radio link control (RLC) parameters, one or more medium access control (MAC) parameters, one or more physical layer parameters, or one or more radio frequency (RF) parameters.
1.A method for identifying at least one sensor on at least one user equipment in a wireless network, the method comprising: transmitting, by a mobile management entity (MME), an initial context setup request for at least one user equipment, to a network entity of the wireless network;
transmitting, by the network entity of the wireless network, a capability enquiry to the at least one user equipment based on the initial context setup request received from the MME;
receiving, at the network entity of the wireless network, capability information from the at least one user equipment in response to the transmitting of the capability enquiry to the at least one user equipment,
wherein the capability information comprises radio capability information of the at least one user equipment, and at least one of: sensor capability information of the at least one user equipment, or sensor type information indicating a type of at least one sensor available at the at least one user equipment, and wherein the radio capability information comprises
at least one of: Access Stratum Release parameters, multiple Data Radio Bearer (ORB) parameters, Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) parameters, Radio Link Control (RLC) parameters, Medium Access Control (MAC) parameters, physical layer parameters, or Radio Frequency (RF) parameters; and
transmitting, by the network entity of the wireless network, the capability information of the at least one user equipment to the MME.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader, but obvious variant of 12,127,298. More specifically, the only difference is that the present application is from the UE’s perspective and 12,127,298 is from the network’s perspective.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the UE’s perspective into the network’s perspective in order to provide efficient communication between all devices within a network.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/889,050
12,127,298
Claim Interpretation
13.The method of claim 12,
wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of: a base station, a core network, a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, or a radio network controller.
2. The method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, a Node B, an eNodeB (eNB) or a radio network controller.
Essentially the same. This analysis is similar to claims 20 and 27.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the network entity of the wireless network is a base station, and the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is received from a core network via the base station.
Claims 1 and 2:
the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, a Node B, an eNodeB (eNB) or a radio network controller and transmitting, by the network entity of the wireless network, a capability enquiry to the at least one user equipment based on the initial context setup request received from the MME.
Obvious variant. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 21 and 28. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the UE’s perspective into the network’s perspective in order to provide efficient communication between all devices within a network.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the at least one of: the sensor capability information, or the sensor type information, included in the UE capability information and transmitted to the network entity is provided to the core network by the network entity.
From claim 3:
receiving, at the MME, at least one status parameter for the at least one sensor of the at least one user equipment, from the at least one user equipment via the network entity of the wireless network, in response to the request for information
Obvious variant. This analysis is similar to claims 22 and 29. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the UE’s perspective into the network’s perspective in order to provide efficient communication between all devices within a network.
16. The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving, from the network entity, an inquiry for data collected at the UE by the at least one sensor associated with the UE.
4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, upon receipt of the capability information of the at least one user equipment, the MME further transmits an inquiry for data collected by a type of the at least one sensor present at the user equipment.
Essentially the same. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 23 and 30.
18. The method of claim 12, wherein the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is based on an initial context setup request received by the network entity from a core network.
From claim 1:
transmitting, by a mobile management entity (MME), an initial context setup request for at least one user equipment
Essentially the same. This analysis is similarly applied to claim 25.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0020998 A1, hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Ryden et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120479 A1, hereinafter Ryden).
Consider claim 12. Takahashi discloses a method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network entity of the wireless network, an inquiry of UE capability information of the UE (fig. 8, paragraph 90, read as the eNB 10 transmits a UE Capability Enquiry (UE capability information request) to the UE 50 (step S11), which is received by the UE 50); and
transmitting, to the network entity of the wireless network, the UE capability information of the UE (fig. 8, paragraph 90, read as the UE 50 transmits the UE capability to the eNB 10 (step S12) in response to the request from the eNB 10),
wherein the UE capability information comprises radio capability information of the UE, and wherein the radio capability information comprises at least one of: one or more access stratum release parameters, one or more data radio bearer parameters, one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) parameters, one or more radio link control (RLC) parameters, one or more medium access control (MAC) parameters, one or more physical layer parameters, or one or more radio frequency (RF) parameters (paragraphs 53, 74, read as UE capability is information that is assumed to be included in a UE context, where the UE context includes an RRC configuration, a bearer configuration (including Robust Header Compression (RoHC) state information, etc.), an AS security context (Access Stratum Security Context), L2/L1 parameters (Medium Access Control (MAC), PHY configuration, etc.)).
Takahashi substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach wherein the UE capability information comprises at least one of: sensor capability information of at least one sensor associated with the UE, or sensor type information indicating a type of the at least one sensor associated with the UE.
However, Ryden teaches wherein the UE capability information comprises at least one of: sensor capability information of at least one sensor associated with the UE, or sensor type information indicating a type of the at least one sensor associated with the UE (fig. 2, paragraphs 42, 51, read as the wireless device 202 returns its sensor capabilities to the network node 200 in response to the preceding request, where the sensor capabilities may be related to at least one of: sensor accuracy and sampling frequency. The sensor capabilities may be further related to what type of measurements the sensors can do, e.g. measurements related to motion, speed, light, temperature, reception of radio signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the sensor capabilities response of Ryden into the capability information of Takahashi in order to provide accurate position determination, while reducing network load and power consumption (paragraph 13).
Consider claim 19. Takahashi discloses a user equipment (UE) for a wireless network (fig. 22, paragraph 208), the UE comprising:
a memory storing an instruction (fig. 22, paragraph 208, read as memory 172); and
a processor configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory (fig. 22, paragraph 208, read as Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 162 is a processor configured to perform a signal process in the BB process module 152. The memory 172 is used as a work area of the DSP 162) to:
receiving, from a network entity of the wireless network, an inquiry of UE capability information of the UE (fig. 8, paragraph 90, read as the eNB 10 transmits a UE Capability Enquiry (UE capability information request) to the UE 50 (step S11), which is received by the UE 50); and
transmitting, to the network entity of the wireless network, the UE capability information of the UE (fig. 8, paragraph 90, read as the UE 50 transmits the UE capability to the eNB 10 (step S12) in response to the request from the eNB 10),
wherein the UE capability information comprises radio capability information of the UE, and wherein the radio capability information comprises at least one of: one or more access stratum release parameters, one or more data radio bearer parameters, one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) parameters, one or more radio link control (RLC) parameters, one or more medium access control (MAC) parameters, one or more physical layer parameters, or one or more radio frequency (RF) parameters (paragraphs 53, 74, read as UE capability is information that is assumed to be included in a UE context, where the UE context includes an RRC configuration, a bearer configuration (including Robust Header Compression (RoHC) state information, etc.), an AS security context (Access Stratum Security Context), L2/L1 parameters (Medium Access Control (MAC), PHY configuration, etc.)).
Takahashi substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach wherein the UE capability information comprises at least one of: sensor capability information of at least one sensor associated with the UE, or sensor type information indicating a type of the at least one sensor associated with the UE.
However, Ryden teaches wherein the UE capability information comprises at least one of: sensor capability information of at least one sensor associated with the UE, or sensor type information indicating a type of the at least one sensor associated with the UE (fig. 2, paragraphs 42, 51, read as the wireless device 202 returns its sensor capabilities to the network node 200 in response to the preceding request, where the sensor capabilities may be related to at least one of: sensor accuracy and sampling frequency. The sensor capabilities may be further related to what type of measurements the sensors can do, e.g. measurements related to motion, speed, light, temperature, reception of radio signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the sensor capabilities response of Ryden into the capability information of Takahashi in order to provide accurate position determination, while reducing network load and power consumption (paragraph 13).
Consider claim 26. Takahashi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network fig. 22, paragraphs 208, 233, read as software which is executed by a processor included in each of the apparatuses according to embodiments may be stored in a random access memory (RAM), a flash memory, a read-only memory (ROM), an EPROM, an EEPROM, a register, a hard disk drive (HDD), a removable disk, a CD-ROM, a database, a server, or any other appropriate recording medium), to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network entity of the wireless network, an inquiry of UE capability information of the UE (fig. 8, paragraph 90, read as the eNB 10 transmits a UE Capability Enquiry (UE capability information request) to the UE 50 (step S11), which is received by the UE 50); and
transmitting, to the network entity of the wireless network, the UE capability information of the UE (fig. 8, paragraph 90, read as the UE 50 transmits the UE capability to the eNB 10 (step S12) in response to the request from the eNB 10),
wherein the UE capability information comprises radio capability information of the UE, and wherein the radio capability information comprises at least one of: one or more access stratum release parameters, one or more data radio bearer parameters, one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) parameters, one or more radio link control (RLC) parameters, one or more medium access control (MAC) parameters, one or more physical layer parameters, or one or more radio frequency (RF) parameters (paragraphs 53, 74, read as UE capability is information that is assumed to be included in a UE context, where the UE context includes an RRC configuration, a bearer configuration (including Robust Header Compression (RoHC) state information, etc.), an AS security context (Access Stratum Security Context), L2/L1 parameters (Medium Access Control (MAC), PHY configuration, etc.)).
Takahashi substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach wherein the UE capability information comprises at least one of: sensor capability information of at least one sensor associated with the UE, or sensor type information indicating a type of the at least one sensor associated with the UE.
However, Ryden teaches wherein the UE capability information comprises at least one of: sensor capability information of at least one sensor associated with the UE, or sensor type information indicating a type of the at least one sensor associated with the UE (fig. 2, paragraphs 42, 51, read as the wireless device 202 returns its sensor capabilities to the network node 200 in response to the preceding request, where the sensor capabilities may be related to at least one of: sensor accuracy and sampling frequency. The sensor capabilities may be further related to what type of measurements the sensors can do, e.g. measurements related to motion, speed, light, temperature, reception of radio signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the sensor capabilities response of Ryden into the capability information of Takahashi in order to provide accurate position determination, while reducing network load and power consumption (paragraph 13).
Claims 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0020998 A1, hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Ryden et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120479 A1, hereinafter Ryden) and as applied to claim 12, 19 and 26, respectively, and further in view of Centonza et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0350027 A1, hereinafter Centonza).
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 12. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of: a base station, a core network, a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, or a radio network controller.
However, Centonza discloses wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of: a base station, a core network, a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, or a radio network controller (paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Centonza into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide improved techniques for controlling whether a UE can use any two radio access technologies (paragraph 8).
Consider claim 14 and as applied to claim 13. The combination of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza disclose wherein the network entity of the wireless network is a base station, and the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is received from a core network via the base station (Centonza; paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Centonza into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide improved techniques for controlling whether a UE can use any two radio access technologies (paragraph 8).
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 12. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is based on an initial context setup request received by the network entity from a core network.
However, Centonza teaches wherein the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is based on an initial context setup request received by the network entity from a core network (paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Centonza into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide improved techniques for controlling whether a UE can use any two radio access technologies (paragraph 8).
Consider claim 20 and as applied to claim 19. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of: a base station, a core network, a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, or a radio network controller.
However, Centonza teaches wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of: a base station, a core network, a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, or a radio network controller (paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Centonza into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide improved techniques for controlling whether a UE can use any two radio access technologies (paragraph 8).
Consider claim 21 and as applied to claim 20. The combination of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza disclose wherein the network entity of the wireless network is a base station, and the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is received from a core network via the base station (Centonza; paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Centonza into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide improved techniques for controlling whether a UE can use any two radio access technologies (paragraph 8).
Consider claim 25 and as applied to claim 19. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is based on an initial context setup request received by the network entity from a core network.
However, Centonza teaches wherein the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is based on an initial context setup request received by the network entity from a core network (paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Centonza into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide improved techniques for controlling whether a UE can use any two radio access technologies (paragraph 8).
Consider claim 27 and as applied to claim 26. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of: a base station, a core network, a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, or a radio network controller.
However, Centonza teaches wherein the network entity of the wireless network comprises at least one of: a base station, a core network, a base station controller, a base transceiver station, a cell site, or a radio network controller (paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Centonza into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide improved techniques for controlling whether a UE can use any two radio access technologies (paragraph 8).
Consider claim 28 and as applied to claim 27. The combination of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza disclose wherein the network entity of the wireless network is a base station, and the inquiry of the UE capability information of the UE is received from a core network via the base station (Centonza; paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Centonza into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide improved techniques for controlling whether a UE can use any two radio access technologies (paragraph 8).
Claims 15, 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0020998 A1, hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Ryden et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120479 A1, hereinafter Ryden) in view of Centonza et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0350027 A1, hereinafter Centonza) and as applied to claims 14, 21 and 28, respectively, and further in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0077361 A1, hereinafter Huang).
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the at least one of: the sensor capability information, or the sensor type information, included in the UE capability information and transmitted to the network entity is provided to the core network by the network entity.
However, Huang teaches wherein the at least one of: the sensor capability information, or the sensor type information, included in the UE capability information and transmitted to the network entity is provided to the core network by the network entity (paragraphs 53, 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza in order to provide a technique that improves the speed at which messages are communicated to the UE, and thus ensures that the messages are delivered before the UE returns to an inactive state (paragraph 10).
Consider claim 22 and as applied to claim 21. The combination of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the at least one of: the sensor capability information, or the sensor type information, included in the UE capability information and transmitted to the network entity is provided to the core network by the network entity.
However, Huang teaches wherein the at least one of: the sensor capability information, or the sensor type information, included in the UE capability information and transmitted to the network entity is provided to the core network by the network entity (paragraphs 53, 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza in order to provide a technique that improves the speed at which messages are communicated to the UE, and thus ensures that the messages are delivered before the UE returns to an inactive state (paragraph 10).
Consider claim 29 and as applied to claim 28. The combination of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the at least one of: the sensor capability information, or the sensor type information, included in the UE capability information and transmitted to the network entity is provided to the core network by the network entity.
However, Huang teaches wherein the at least one of: the sensor capability information, or the sensor type information, included in the UE capability information and transmitted to the network entity is provided to the core network by the network entity (paragraphs 53, 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi, Ryden and Centonza in order to provide a technique that improves the speed at which messages are communicated to the UE, and thus ensures that the messages are delivered before the UE returns to an inactive state (paragraph 10).
Claims 16, 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0020998 A1, hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Ryden et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120479 A1, hereinafter Ryden) and as applied to claim 12, 19 and 26, respectively, and further in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0077361 A1, hereinafter Huang).
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 12. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein receiving, from the network entity, an inquiry for data collected at the UE by the at least one sensor associated with the UE.
However, Huang teaches wherein receiving, from the network entity, an inquiry for data collected at the UE by the at least one sensor associated with the UE (paragraphs 53, 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide a technique that improves the speed at which messages are communicated to the UE, and thus ensures that the messages are delivered before the UE returns to an inactive state (paragraph 10).
Consider claim 23 and as applied to claim 19. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to: receive, from the network entity, an inquiry for data collected at the UE by the at least one sensor associated with the UE.
However, Huang teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to: receive, from the network entity, an inquiry for data collected at the UE by the at least one sensor associated with the UE (paragraphs 53, 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide a technique that improves the speed at which messages are communicated to the UE, and thus ensures that the messages are delivered before the UE returns to an inactive state (paragraph 10).
Consider claim 30 and as applied to claim 26. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the network entity, an inquiry for data collected at the UE by the at least one sensor associated with the UE.
However, Huang teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the network entity, an inquiry for data collected at the UE by the at least one sensor associated with the UE (paragraphs 53, 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide a technique that improves the speed at which messages are communicated to the UE, and thus ensures that the messages are delivered before the UE returns to an inactive state (paragraph 10).
Claims 17, 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0020998 A1, hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Ryden et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120479 A1, hereinafter Ryden) and as applied to claim 12, 19 and 26, respectively, and further in view of Raghaven et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0195336 A1, hereinafter Raghaven).
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 12. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein receiving, from the network entity, an indication of one or more adjustments to one or more transmission beams to be made at the network entity based on the UE capability information.
However, Raghaven teaches wherein receiving, from the network entity, an indication of one or more adjustments to one or more transmission beams to be made at the network entity based on the UE capability information (paragraphs 164, 165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide an efficient and flexible means for beamforming for wireless devices in a wireless communication system (paragraph 166).
Consider claim 24 and as applied to claim 19. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to: receive, from the network entity, an indication of one or more adjustments to one or more transmission beams to be made at the network entity based on the UE capability information.
However, Raghaven teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to: receive, from the network entity, an indication of one or more adjustments to one or more transmission beams to be made at the network entity based on the UE capability information (paragraphs 164, 165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide an efficient and flexible means for beamforming for wireless devices in a wireless communication system (paragraph 166).
Consider claim 31 and as applied to claim 26. The combination of Takahashi and Ryden disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the network entity, an indication of one or more adjustments to one or more transmission beams to be made at the network entity based on the UE capability information.
However, Raghaven teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the network entity, an indication of one or more adjustments to one or more transmission beams to be made at the network entity based on the UE capability information (paragraphs 164, 165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Huang into the invention of Takahashi and Ryden in order to provide an efficient and flexible means for beamforming for wireless devices in a wireless communication system (paragraph 166).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0327107 A1) discloses a system described herein may provide a mechanism for efficiently delivering messages to a User Equipment (“UE”) associated with a wireless telecommunications network, such as a UE that is frequently in an inactive state. A message for the UE may be received and buffered. Once the network determines that the UE has transitioned from the inactive state to the active state (e.g., as detected by a Mobility Management Entity (“MME”) or an Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”)), the buffered message may be provided to the UE using control plane signaling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 September 30, 2026
