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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-12, 14-15, 19-20, and 25-26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With regard to the amended independent claims, they have been amended to recite, in part:
“initiating the RRC connection resume procedure while the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE; and
starting a timer, among the first timer and the second timer, with the first value of the first timer being started for non-Small Data Transmission (SDT), for the RRC connection resume procedure upon initiation of the RRC connection resume procedure, and with the second value of the second timer being started for SDT, for the RRC connection resume procedure upon transmission of a RRC resume request message of the RRC connection resume procedure after the initiation of the RRC connection resume procedure for SDT”
The office notes that there appears to be some, inconsistency, and a lack of synchroneity among the starting of the first and second timers. For example, first timer for Non-SDT is started upon initiation of non-SDT, and applicant alleges that the timer for SDT is started after the initiation of RRC_RESUME for SDT. The question becomes, how does a timer started after the initiation of the RRC_RESUME procedure monitor or control the RRC_RESUME procedure. At the time of the invention, 3GPP 38.331 Version 15.10.0 (2020-07) states that timer is started upon the initiation of the RRC_RESUME, (e.g. timer is started when RRC_RESUME request is transmitted), which is the initiation of the RRC_RESUME, pg.73 see initiation of RRC_RESUME:
“The UE initiates the procedure when upper layers or AS (when responding to RAN paging or upon triggering RNA updates while the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE) requests the resume of a suspended RRC connection.
The UE shall ensure having valid and up to date essential system information as specified in clause 5.2.2.2 before initiating this procedure.
Upon initiation of the procedure, the UE shall:
start timer T319;”
As can be seen, the standard at the time of the invention, is to start the timer upon initiation as claimed in the 3GPP standard and in the at least one case in the current claims (see e.g. “the first timer being started for non-Small Data Transmission (SDT), for the RRC connection resume procedure upon initiation of the RRC connection resume procedure”), and as previously claimed in the last claim set.
The applicants disclosure does not recite, explicitly, that the timer is started after initiation, and it does not detail how a timer started after the initiation of the RRC_RESUME for SDT is used to monitor or control the RRC_RESUME for SDT. There is no indication of an offset added to synchronize the timer to the procedure, or any indication that there is some mechanism to ensure that the timer started after the procedure is synchronized, and is capable of monitoring the procedure itself if the timer is not started at the initiation of the procedure.
Thus, the claims are rejected.
Claim 11, which is parallel in scope with claim 1 is similarly rejected. Additionally, any dependent claims which depend from independent claims 1 and 11 and similarly rejected for their dependency on claims the independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-12, 14-15, 19-20, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above, there is no explicit recitation in the specification as filed that indicates that the timer(s), which are guard timers for RRC_RESUME are started after the initiation of the RRC_RESUME procedure as is now claimed.
As a first matter, it appears that a timer which is not for SDT is started at the initiation of RRC_RESUME, and the timer for SDT is started after the initiation for RRC_RESUME. In the drawings, and the other portions of the specification as filed, it is clearly shown that the timers are started at the initiation of RRC_RESUME. It is noted that the initiation of RRC_RESUME corresponds with the RRC_RESUME request transmission, as discussed in 3GPP above. Applicants insistence that the RRC_RESUME is initiated prior to the transmission of RRC_RESUME is unfounded, and runs contrary to the 3GPP standard. Further applicants specification explicitly states:
“Abstract - Methods and apparatuses are provided for starting a timer, or one or more timers, upon initiation of a RRC connection resume procedure, wherein the timer is used to control duration of the RRC connection resume procedure.”
It is clear, from the disclosure, that the RRC_RESUME and timer are started in a same time, as is argued in previous arguments see pg.8 of 10/18/2022 pg.9. Thus, the initiation of RRC_RESUME corresponds with starting of the timer that corresponds, and guards the RRC_RESUME process. Further, it is noted that RRC_RESUME plus SDT occurs before a UL-GRANT RRC_RESUME procedure. The UE receives the UL-GRANT during the RRC_RESUME procedure and is able to send more data. Thus, the timer for SDT+RRC_RESUME must be started when sending the PRACH with RRC_RESUME + SDT data as shown throughout the figures of the specification.
As stated above, any claims dependent on claims 1 and 11 are rejected, and any claims depending from the above claims are similarly rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and each of their respective dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fujishiro et al. (US 2022/0256587 A1) “Communication Control Method, User Equipment, and Apparatus for Performing Early Data Transmission”, par.[0004]
Fujishiro et al. (US 2020/0187245 A1) “Communication Control Method”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights