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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 16, 18, 19 are amended. Claim 20 is newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 states the limitation, “the reader device is to perform the following operation:”, which implies a single operation as the plural form “operations” isn’t used. But multiple operations are listed in claim 16. Therefore, it is unclear if all the operations are included or only a single operation is included by the limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan (US 20250317924 A1), and further in view of Paczkowski (US 11924908 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 19, Ganesan discloses a reader device for communicating with at least one radio tag of a plurality of radio tags (base station/reader 202 to communicate with IoT devices 204, Para. 59),
wherein the reader device is connectable to a radio access network, RAN, entity of a wireless communication system and to one or more or all of the plurality of radio tags (base station/reader 202 connectable to other base stations 102/202 forming a RAN, Para. 39, 38-40, 59; Fig. 1 and Fig. 2),
wherein, responsive to one or more conditions, the reader device is to operate in accordance with a radio tag mode, in which a data transfer between the reader device and the at least one radio tag is enabled (via inventory request command, Para. 34).
Ganesan fails to disclose wherein, when being in the radio tag mode, the reader device is in a state in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and the RAN entity.
Paczkowski teaches a system including a reader device to read tags (UE 110 including reader application 130 to read article including chip 103, col. 5, lines 32-49), wherein the reader device can be configured in a mode in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and a RAN entity to manage communications of devices in the system (col. 11, lines 10-40).
From the teachings of Paczkowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan to include wherein, when being in the radio tag mode, the reader device is in a state in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and the RAN entity in order to limit communications of some devices to avoid radio interference.
Regarding claim 2, Ganesan discloses wherein the radio tag is an A-Iot device, and, for communicating with at least one radio tag of a plurality of A-loT devices, the reader device comprises an A-IoT reader (NE 102 to communicate with Ambient IoT devices, Para. 58).
Regarding claim 3, Ganesan discloses wherein the A-loT reader communicates with the one or more A-loT devices using an A-loT radio interface (Uu interface, Para. 39), the A-loT radio interface supporting one or more A-loT procedures, the A-loT procedure comprising an A-IoT paging, an A-loT access procedure (paging, random access, Para. 77) and a D2R data transmission performed during the A-IoT procedure (Para. 92).
Regarding claims 4, 5, Ganesan discloses wherein, responsive to the one or more conditions, the A-loT reader operates in accordance with the A-loT radio interface for enabling the data transfer between the one or more A-loT devices and the A-loT reader; wherein the one or more conditions for operating in accordance with the A-loT radio interface comprises a certain communication with the at least one radio tag or A-loT device (Para. 77 and 92).
Regarding claim 6, Ganesan discloses wherein the one or more conditions for operating in accordance with the A-loT radio interface comprises an A-loT procedure to be performed by the reader device over the A-loT radio interface which includes an A-loT paging, an A-loT access procedure and a D2R data transmission (Para. 77 and 92).
Regarding claim 7, Ganesan discloses wherein the one or more conditions for operating in accordance with the A-loT radio interface comprises an inventory or command request message sent by an A-loT CN node for initiating the A-IoT procedure over the A-loT radio interface to perform an A-loT paging, an A-loT access procedure and a D2R data transmission (Para. 80, 77 and 92).
Regarding claim 10, Ganesan discloses wherein the one or more conditions comprise a certain signaling causing the reader device to operate according to the radio tag mode (communications with Ambient Internet of Things (IoT) device, Para. 5, 28, 32).
Regarding claim 11, Ganesan discloses wherein the certain communication with the at
least one radio tag comprises: receiving only a first part of a data transmission from the at least one radio tag which indicates, a second part of a data transmission (control header information indicates the information about the next payload segment, Para. 115).
Regarding claim 12, Ganesan discloses wherein a transmission from the at least one radio tag indicate explicitly the following: a further part of the data transmission (Para. 115-116).
Regarding claim 13, Ganesan discloses wherein the reader device is to determine the
transmission to be the initial part of the data transmission from a presence of a signaling in the initial part of the data transmission indicating the presence of one or more additional parts of the data transmission (control header information indicates the information about the next payload segment, Para. 115-116).
Regarding claim 14, Ganesan discloses wherein the certain radio tag operation to be performed 102 by the reader device comprises: one or more routinary inventory scans through the plurality of radio tags (Para. 117).
Regarding claim 15, Ganesan discloses wherein the certain signaling is responsive to determining one of more of the following: the certain radio tag operation to be performed by the reader device (configured to, capable of, or operable to receive a configuration for communication with a reader; select, based at least in part on a rule or formula, an interval of a plurality of intervals for transmission; transmit, within an occasion of one of the plurality of intervals for transmission, at least one of random access or an electronic product code identifier, Para. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Ganesan discloses wherein, when operating in accordance with the radio tag mode, the reader device is to perform the following operation: receiving and/or reading of data from the at least one radio tag (electronic product code identifier, Para. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Ganesan discloses wherein the reader device is to communicate with
a core network of the wireless communication system using a core interface (106, Para. 38), and the radio tag using an A-loT radio interface (Uu interface, Para. 39).
Regarding claim 20, Ganesan and Paczkowski teach wherein when being in the out-of-coverage state, the reader device is to start a configured or preconfigured timer, and following the lapse of the configured or preconfigured timer, the reader device is to perform: start or activate a communication with the radio network (via after the predetermined duration, the wireless network interrupt manager 140 may resume a UE connection state with the RAN 104 and/or operator core network 106 so that the transport of network traffic is restored, col. 6, lines 25-45 of Paczkowski).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan in view of Paczkowski, and further in view of Lee (US 20170013610 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ganesan and Paczkowski fail to disclose wherein the reader device receives the D2R data transmission, the D2R transmission comprising a D2R upper layer data transfer message for a segment of the data transmission which includes a SDU length field, a data SDU field which is set to include the segment, and a more data indication field.
Lee teaches a method and apparatus for transmitting uplink data. The teachings include upper layer data transfer message for a segment of a data transmission which includes a SDU length field (Para. 163, 178), a data SDU field which is set to include the segment (Para. 163-167), and a more data indication field (Para. 171).
From the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan to include wherein the reader device receives the D2R data transmission, the D2R transmission comprising a D2R upper layer data transfer message for a segment of the data transmission which includes a SDU length field, a data SDU field which is set to include the segment, and a more data indication field in order to properly and reliably communicate data from the radio tag to the reader device using a standardized network communication model.
Regarding claim 9, Ganesan, Paczkowski and Lee teach the claimed invention, wherein Lee teaches wherein the more data indication field is set to 0, if the segment is the last segment of an original upper layer data SDU, 1, if the segment is not the last segment of the original upper layer data SDU (Para. 171 of Lee).
Regarding claim 18, Ganesan discloses a radio tag for communicating with a reader device, which serves a plurality of radio tags, is an A-loT reader connectable to a radio access network, RAN, entity a wireless communication system and is operable in accordance with a radio tag mode (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the radio tag comprises an A-loT device which communicates with the A-loT reader using an A-loT radio interface (Uu interface, Para. 39),
the A-loT radio interface supporting one or more A-loT procedures, the A-loT procedure comprising an A-IoT paging, an A-IoT access procedure and a D2R data transmission performed during the A-IoT procedure (Para. 77 and 92).
Ganesan fails to disclose wherein the D2R transmission by the radio tag comprises a D2R upper layer data transfer message for a segment of the data transmission which includes: a SDU length field, a data SDU field which is set to include the segment, and a more data indication field, wherein the more data indication field is set to 0, if the segment is the last segment of an original upper layer data SDU, and wherein the more data indication field is set to 1, if the segment is not the last segment of the original upper layer data SDU.
Lee teaches a method and apparatus for transmitting uplink data. The teachings include upper layer data transfer message for a segment of a data transmission which includes a SDU length field (Para. 163, 178), a data SDU field which is set to include the segment (Para. 163-167), and a more data indication field, wherein the more data indication field is set to 0, if the segment is the last segment of an original upper layer data SDU, and wherein the more data indication field is set to 1, if the segment is not the last segment of the original upper layer data SDU (Para. 171).
From the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan to include the features cited above in order to properly and reliably communicate data from the radio tag to the reader device using a standardized network communication model.
Ganesan and Lee fail to disclose wherein, when being in the radio tag mode, the reader device is in a state in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and the RAN entity.
Paczkowski teaches a system including a reader device to read tags (UE 110 including reader application 130 to read article including chip 103, col. 5, lines 32-49), wherein the reader device can be configured in a mode in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and a RAN entity to manage communications of devices in the system (col. 11, lines 10-40).
From the teachings of Paczkowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan to include wherein, when being in the radio tag mode, the reader device is in a state in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and the RAN entity in order to limit communications of some devices to avoid radio interference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference (Paczkowski) not presented before.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 EST.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights