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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claim 1 limitations seem to lack logical structure and appear to contradict themselves: the 2nd limitation recites “report the value of the parameter to the network prior to utilizing the value of the parameter”. However, the last limitation reports the value of the parameter to the network after utilizing the value (2nd last limitation).
The same argument applies to independent claim 11.
Claims 2 – 10, 12 – 20 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
In claim 1 rejection below, the phrase “network prior to utilizing the value of the parameter” is not considered.
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.
Claims 1 - 2, 4 - 9, 11 - 12, 14 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madadi et al. (US 20220286927 A1; which has been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 1, Madadi discloses
a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) ([0007] discloses UE; wherein the WTRU is interpreted as the UE; Fig. 3) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 3, processor 310; [0082] – [0084]) configured to:
send a first message to a network, the first message indicating that the WTRU is capable of determining a value of at least parameter (Fig. 5, block 501; [0103] discloses “At operation 501, a UE reports the UE's AI/ML capability to support AI/ML assisted handover management to the BS..”);
receive configuration information from the network, wherein the configuration information indicates whether the WTRU is permitted to determine the value of the parameter and indicate whether the WTRU is to report the value of the parameter to the network (Fig. 5, block 502; [0104]);
determine, based on at least one condition associated with the WTRU, the value of the parameter ([0106] discloses “At operation 504, the UE performs the inference based on the received configuration information, measurement reporting parameters and local data. For example, the UE follows the configured ML model and model parameters, measurement reporting parameters and uses local data and/or data sent from the BS to perform the inference operation.”; Fig. 5, block 504);
apply the value of the parameter to at least one NAS procedure performed by the WTRU ([0106] discloses “Based on the outcome of the inference, the UE sends the measurement report to the BS.”; wherein the applying the value will be inherent in the measurements);
and send a second message to the network, wherein the second message comprises one or more of an indication of the value of the parameter or an indication that the WTRU has applied the value of the parameter (Fig. 5, block 505; [0106] discloses “At operation 505, the UE may send the updated A1/ML model parameters based on local training to BS, i.e., model training at UE based on the local information which may include but is not limited to UE location, UE trajectory, etc.”).
Madadi discloses use of handover parameters in Fig. 5. Madadi does not disclose use of NAS layer parameters. However, performing the above steps for NAS layer parameters is an obvious variation of performing them for handover parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the above method for NAS layer parameters because this would allow for managing mobility sessions and security.
Regarding claim 2, Madadi discloses the processor is configured to utilize the value of the parameter in one or more of a mobility management procedure, a S session management procedure, or a procedure during disaster roaming (Fig. 5, block 501 discloses handover i.e. mobility).
Regarding claim 4, Madadi discloses the processor is further configured to send a third message to the network prior to applying the value of the NAS layer parameter, wherein the third message indicates the value of the NAS layer parameter (Fig. 5, block 505; [0106] discloses “At operation 505, the UE may send the updated A1/ML model parameters based on local training to BS, i.e., model training at UE based on the local information which may include but is not limited to UE location, UE trajectory, etc.”).
Regarding claim 5, Madadi discloses the processor is configured to receive a response message from the network before applying the value of the NAS layer parameter, wherein the response message comprises an indication of whether the WTRU is permitted to apply the value of the NAS layer parameter (Fig. 5, block 502; [0104] discloses “At operation 502, a UE receives configuration information, including information related to ML/AI techniques such as enabling/disabling of ML approach for handover, ML model to be used, and/or the trained model parameters”).
Regarding claim 6, Madadi discloses the processor is configured to determine the value of the parameter using an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) model ([0013]; [0123] – [0104]; Fig. 5, blocks 501, 502).
NAS layer parameter analyzed as in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Madadi discloses the processor is configured to determine AI/ML model inputs prior to determining the value of the parameter, wherein the AI/ML model inputs comprise at least one of WTRU speed, WTRU location, historical access to high-priority services, or network conditions (Abstract discloses “The determination of whether to initiate handover according to the received configuration information for the machine learning handover event is based on one or more of: signal quality for one or more serving base stations, signal quality for one or more neighboring base stations, a velocity of the UE, a location of the UE, and a trajectory of the UE.”; Fig. 5, block 502 discloses “ML model parameters” used for ML approach).
NAS layer parameter analyzed as in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Madadi does not disclose the configuration information comprises an indication of how the WTRU is permitted to modify the value of the parameter; and wherein the indication of how the WTRU is permitted to modify the value of the NAS layer parameter comprises an indication of a maximum allowable percentage change from a network- configured value of the NAS layer parameter.
However, changing the parameter according to a percentage is obvious to try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) ) since parameter changes normally occur slowly as network conditions change or UE speed/location changes slowly. Hence, changing the parameter by a small amount or percentage is obvious to do.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to change parameters by a percentage because this would compensate for incremental changes in the network or UE location/speed.
NAS layer parameter analyzed as in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Madadi discloses the at least one condition comprises one or more of a WTRU speed, a WTRU location, historical access to high-priority services, or network conditions (Abstract discloses “The determination of whether to initiate handover according to the received configuration information for the machine learning handover event is based on one or more of: signal quality for one or more serving base stations, signal quality for one or more neighboring base stations, a velocity of the UE, a location of the UE, and a trajectory of the UE.”; Fig. 5, block 502 discloses “ML model parameters” used for ML approach).
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 11 reciting equivalent method limitations.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 8.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 9.
Claims 3, 10, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madadi et al. (US 20220286927 A1; which has been provided in the International Search Report) in view of Kim et al. (US 20190342821 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Madadi does not disclose the value of the NAS layer parameter comprises a timer value, wherein the timer value comprises one or more of: a periodic registration timer; a back-off timer; or a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session establishment retransmission timer.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Kim discloses:
the value of the NAS layer parameter comprises a timer value, wherein the timer value comprises one or more of:
a periodic registration timer;
a back-off timer ([0148]; [0152]);
or a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session establishment retransmission timer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Kim, in the system of Madadi because this would allow for UE control when network congestion occurs, as disclosed by Kim ([0152]).
Regarding claim 10, Madadi does not disclose the processor is configured to determine to exit an idle mode based on the value of the NAS layer parameter and to initiate a registration update procedure upon exiting the idle mode.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Kim discloses the processor is configured to determine to exit an idle mode based on the value of the NAS layer parameter ([0148] discloses “a back-off timer value is transmitted to a UE in an idle mode or a connected mode by being carried on a NAS reject message. In this case, the UE does not request an EMM/GMM/(E)SM signal to the network until the back-off timer expires…”) and to initiate a registration update procedure upon exiting the idle mode ([0255] discloses use of “a registration update procedure”; wherein it is obvious to do an update after exiting idle mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Kim, in the system of Madadi because this would allow for reregistration after exiting idle mode, which is obvious to do since the UE may have moved to another location and reregistration would be necessary.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 10.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to NAS configuration:
Adjakple et al. (US 20130044709 A1) discloses Method and Apparatus For Using Non-Access Stratum Procedures In A Mobile Station To Access Resources Of Component Carriers Belonging To Different Radio Access Technologies.
Pelletier et al. (US 20130028069 A1) Discloses Method and Apparatus For Radio Resources Management In Multi-Radio Access Technology Wireless Systems.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights