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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
1. This is in response to application filed on 1/19/2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 1-6 and 8-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2016/0150496), (hereinafter, Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), an occurrence of a condition related to an unavailability period (= UE 100 transmits TAU request to MME#A which is in an inability state, see [0131]); and resetting, by the processor, a counter responsive to the determining (= when such failure is repeated five times, the UE 100 starts access/location update associated timer, see [0131]).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Kim discloses the method, wherein the resetting of the counter comprises resetting a service request attempt counter (see, [01156]).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 1, Kim discloses the method, wherein the resetting of the counter comprises resetting an attach attempt counter (see, [0131]).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in claim 1, Kim discloses the method, wherein the resetting of the counter comprises resetting a tracking area updating (TAU) attempt counter (see, [0131]).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 1, Kim discloses the method, wherein the resetting of the counter comprises resetting a registration attempt counter (see, [0175-76]).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 1, Kim discloses the method, wherein the condition comprises the UE activating the unavailability period.
(see, [0194]).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 1, Kim discloses the method, wherein the condition comprises the unavailability period being activated for one or more UE reasons other than a discontinuous coverage (see, [0194]).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 1, Kim discloses the method, wherein the condition comprises the unavailability period being activated (see, [0194]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), an occurrence of a condition other than an unavailability period (= service request procedure is performed when the UE 100 switches EMM-IDLE into EMM-CONNECTED state, see [0139]); and
resetting, by the processor, a counter responsive to the determining (= when UE 100 transmits the service request message…UE 100 starts the service request timer, see [0140]).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim discloses the method, wherein the resetting of the counter comprises resetting a service request attempt counter (= UE 100 starts the service request timer, see [0140]).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim discloses the method, wherein the resetting of the counter comprises resetting an attach attempt counter (see [0164]).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim discloses the method, wherein the resetting of the counter comprises resetting a tracking area updating (TAU) attempt counter (see [0175-76]).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim discloses the method, wherein the resetting of the counter comprises resetting a registration attempt counter (see [0175-76]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park et al., (US 2021/0410107), (hereinafter, Park).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 1, Kim explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises the unavailability period being activated for a discontinuous coverage.
However, Park, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises the unavailability period being activated for a discontinuous coverage (see, [0382]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Park with Kim for the benefit of achieving a communication system that reduces resource waste for unsuccessful paging based on updated paging configurations.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises an access stratum being deactivated for a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) access.
However, Park, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises an access stratum being deactivated for a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) access (see, [0337 and 0342]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Park with Kim for the benefit of achieving a communication system that reduces resource waste for unsuccessful paging based on updated paging configurations.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises an access stratum being deactivated for a discontinuous coverage.
However, Park, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises an access stratum being deactivated for a discontinuous coverage (see, [0340]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Park with Kim for the benefit of achieving a communication system that reduces resource waste for unsuccessful paging based on updated paging configurations.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises an access stratum being deactivated for a reason other than a discontinuous coverage.
However, Park, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises an access stratum being deactivated for a reason other than a discontinuous coverage (see, [0339]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Park with Kim for the benefit of achieving a communication system that reduces resource waste for unsuccessful paging based on updated paging configurations.
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises a mobile-initiated- connection-only (MICO) mode being activated.
However, Park, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises a mobile-initiated- connection-only (MICO) mode being activated (see, [0339]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Park with Kim for the benefit of achieving a communication system that reduces resource waste for unsuccessful paging based on updated paging configurations.
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises a power-saving mode (PSM) being activated.
However, Park, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises a power-saving mode (PSM) being activated.
(see, [0304 and 0340]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Park with Kim for the benefit of achieving a communication system that reduces resource waste for unsuccessful paging based on updated paging configurations.
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned in claim 10, Kim explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises a timer T3502 being stopped.
However, Park, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method, wherein the condition comprises a timer T3502 being stopped (see, [0291 and 0293]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Park with Kim for the benefit of achieving a communication system that reduces resource waste for unsuccessful paging based on updated paging configurations.
CONCLUSION
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights