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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, 14-15, 19-20, 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.
With regard to the amendments to the independent claims, they have been amended to recite, in part:
“the first timer and the second timer are stopped upon reception of an RRC response message for the RRC connection resume procedure”
With regard to the first and second timer, the applicants claims state that a timer is utilized for SDT and a timer is utilized for non-SDT. The applicants specification and fig(s) 16-19 describe and depict the utilization of a first and second timer one for SDT and one for UL grant after SDT is performed. In the disclosed figures the UE when transmitting an initial RRC Resume Request starts either the first timer or second timer for SDT, whichever is configured to operate first, either the first timer or second timer depending on which is started first will stop upon reception of RA complete with an indication of a subsequent data transmission. It is noted in every scenario wherein the timer is utilized for SDT then the timer is stopped when receiving RA complete along with indication of subsequent data, wherein the timer for non-SDT is utilized for managing the subsequent data operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from applicants fig.17 the second timer for SDT is stopped when receiving a RACH complete plus UL grant. And the first timer for non-SDT is stopped when receiving RRC response message, which is for an UL grant. The applicants allegation that both are stopped when receiving the RRC response appears to be improperly mixing embodiments in order to overcome the prior art. In view of applicants disclosure which explicitly discloses that when the second timer is used for SDT then RA complete is utilized to stop the timer and the first timer is started, which the applicant alleges that is not a RRC response message to the RRC Resume. Thus, it would appear that when utilizing the second timer for SDT, then the second timer is not stopped by an RRC Response message when utilizing dual timers as claimed, and is stopped when receiving the RACH response along with the indication for more subsequent data transmission. Thus, it is shown that SDT timer is stopped when RA complete when utilizing either the first or second timer for SDT and not for RRC resume, and the timer for RRC resume is stopped when receiving an RRC Response.
With regard to the dependent claims, 2, 4-5, 9-11, 12, 14-15, 19-20, 25-26, the claims are rejected for their dependency thereon.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, 19, 20-21, 23, 25-26, and 29-30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal (US 2022/022266 A1) in view of Xu (US 2022/0225465 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Agiwal:
a method for a User Equipment (UE) (par.[0048] describes a user equipment), comprising:
being configured with a first timer T319 with a first value and a second timer, not T319 with a second value (par.[0219] describes two different timers, one for SDT and another for non-SDT, see e.g. “The UE may also stop the timer started upon initiation of SDT procedure and start the timer for connection resume procedure i.e. T319.”. As each timer has a value, the first timer is configured with a first value and a second timer is configured with a second value the timers are different, also, the timer for non-SDT and associated with RRCConnectionResume, is the timer T319, see e.g. “start the timer for connection resume procedure i.e. T319.”) wherein the first timer and the second timer are used to control a duration of a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection resume procedure (fig(s).1-2 depict a 2-step and 4-step RACH procedure wherein the UE transmits an RRC_RESUME message to the network, additionally, the fig(s). 5-6 and par.[0219] describe switching from a first timer to a second timer, wherein each use the RRC_RESUME, or are used to control the duration of the RRC_RESUME, as the EDT/SDT use the RRC_RESUME, and the non-EDT/SDT would utilize the RRC_RESUME);
initiating the RRC connection resume procedure while the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE (par.[0237 – 0238] describes performing the RRC_CONNECTION resume while the UE is in the RRC_INACTIVE state);
starting a timer, among the first timer and the second timer (the aforecited timers each for RRC_RESUME, while one is utilized for non-SDT, and the other for SDT as discussed above), 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 (par.[0219] describes starting a timer for the RRC_RESUME for non-SDT, see e.g. “and start the timer for connection resume procedure i.e. T319.”), 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 (fig(s).2-3 which depict the RRC_RESUME in conjunction with the SDT procedure, and par.[0219] which recites, in part, “The UE may also stop the timer started upon initiation of SDT procedure”. That is, the when the RRC_RESUME is sent for the SDT the timer for SDT is also started);
While the disclosure of Agiwal substantially discloses the claimed invention, it may not disclose:
the first timer and the second timer are stopped upon reception of an RRC response message for the RRC connection resume procedure; and
wherein the UE enters RRC_IDLE upon expiry of the first timer or the second timer.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Xu teaches:
the first timer and the second timer are stopped upon reception of an RRC response message for the RRC connection resume procedure (par.[0083] describes the stopping of either timer by reception of RRC message, see “after the timer is started or restarted, the timer is not always in a running state, but is stopped when a specific condition, for example, the foregoing scenario of stopping the timer, is met. For example, when receiving an RRC connection release message from the network device, the terminal controls the timer to stop running, that is, stops the timer. It may be understood that when the terminal receives a radio resource control RRC connection resume message, a connection setup message, or the like from the network device, the terminal may also stop the timer”. Also, par.[0099]. Also par.[0136] describes stopping the first timer upon reception of RRC message, wherein the first timer is utilized for SDT.)
and;
wherein the UE enters RRC_IDLE upon expiry of the first timer or the second timer (par.[0322] teaches when either timer expires the UE entering into the IDLE state when the RRC connection restoration failure for a first timer, par.[0444] refers to T2 which is another timer, and the UE may enter into IDLE state based on the failure of the timer T2); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Agiwal for a timer associated with SDT and a timer associated with more data transmission, with the disclosure of Xu, which teaches the expiry and stopping of the multiple timers. The motivation/suggestion would have been to prevent RRC_RESUME failure and provide a mechanism for better ensuring that resume procedure is successful.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Agiwal discloses:
wherein the RRC resume request message is transmitted in MSGA of a 2-step Random Access Channel (RACH) or msg3 of 4-step RACH (fig.1 depicts a 4-step RACH wherein RRCResume is sent in a msg3 and fig.2 depicts a 2-step RACH wherein the MSGa comprises the RRCResumeRequest).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Agiwal discloses:
wherein the first RRC_RESUME_REQUEST is a RRC_RESUME_REQUEST or an RRC_RESUME_REQUEST1 (par.[0084] which teaches the RRC_RESUME_REQUEST or the RRC_RESUME_REQUEST1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Xu discloses:
starting the timer used to identify the failure of the RRC connection resume procedure not for small data transmission upon initiation of the RRC connection resume procedure not for small data transmission (par.[0136] describes starting the first timer during the initiation of the RRC_RESUME process from the UE. The process may then end or be extended by a second timer of a same or different type. It is noted that RRC_RESUME can be used for EDT/SDT or traditional RESUME procedure).
Regarding claim 9 and 19, Xu teaches:
wherein a configuration of the first timer, used to identify failure of the RRC connection resume procedure small data transmission, is included in system information (par.[0146] describes broadcasting (i.e. system information) the configuration for the timer, such as the duration etc.. The timer being used for RRC_RESUME for SDT, par.[0170 – 0171]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the disclosure of Xu teaches:
wherein the RRC response message is a RRC resume message (par.[0058] describes the RRCConnectionResume message), a RRC setup message (par.[0058] describes the RRCConnectionSetup message), a RRC release message (par.[0058] depicts the RRC release message), or a RRC reject message (the Office notes that the Reject message is well-known and discussed in Da Silva below).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Agiwal discloses:
wherein the first timer is a T319 timer (par.[0219] describes an SDT timer and a T319 timer for non-SDT).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Xu discloses:
Wherein the first value is different than the second value (par.[0460] which describes the T319 duration or second duration, and the new timer T(2-4) may be the same or longer. Thus, the disclosure teaches a plurality of configurable values of a T319 timer and a new timer. Additionally Xu teaches that first and second timer may be T319 and wherein the two timers have a same or different value par.[0408, 0458- 0460]).
Regarding claim 29 and 30, Agiwal discloses:
wherein second timer is not a timer T319 (par.[0219] describes a T319 for non-SDT and SDT timer for SDT).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal and Xu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lindheimer et al. (US 2020/0120741 A1).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, the disclosures of Agiwal and Xu substantially disclose the claimed subject matter but may not disclose:
wherein the RRC connection resume procedure not for small data transmission is for responding to radio access network (RAN) paging, triggering RAN-based Notification Area (RNA) updates, or sidelink communication.
However, the above technique was well-known prior to the effective filing date of the instant application. For example, the disclosure of Lindheimer teaches:
Wherein the RRC connection resume procedure not for small data transmission is for responding to radio access network (RAN) paging, triggering RAN-based Notification Area (RNA) updates, or sidelink communication (Abstract: discloses that the UE may perform Resume for RNA update. Par.[0021] discloses that the UE may perform resume in response to RAN paging.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Xu and Agiwal, with the disclosure of Linheimer. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow the UE to perform a TA update or receive paging for downlink data while the UE is in the RRC_INACTIVE state.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2029 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant alleges that the combination of Agiwal (US 2022/022266 A1) in view of Xu (US 2022/0225465 A1), does not disclose:
“the first timer and the second timer are stopped upon reception of a RRC response message for the RRC connection resume procedure”.
The office respectfully disagrees.
The applicant alleges that the specification teaches that first and second timers are both stopped based on RRCResume Response messaging. When arguing that the disclosures of Agiwal and Xu do not disclose this feature, the applicant argues that because the UE receives the RAR with UL grant this is not a RRCResume Response.
With regard to the first and second timer, the applicants claims state that a timer is utilized for SDT and a timer is utilized for non-SDT. The applicants specification and fig(s) 16-19 describe and depict the utilization of a first and second timer one for SDT and one for UL grant after SDT is performed. In the disclosed figures the UE when transmitting an initial RRC Resume Request starts either the first timer or second timer for SDT, whichever is configured to operate first, either the first timer or second timer depending on which is started first will stop upon reception of RA complete with an indication of a subsequent data transmission.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from applicants fig.17 the second timer for SDT is stopped when receiving a RACH complete plus UL grant. And the first timer for non-SDT is stopped when receiving RRC response message, which is for an UL grant. The applicants allegation that both are stopped when receiving the RRC response appears to be improperly mixing embodiments in order to overcome the prior art. In view of applicants disclosure which explicitly discloses that when the second timer is used for SDT then RA complete is utilized to stop the timer and the first timer is started.
Nevertheless the disclosure of Agiwal teaches that the SDT timer is stopped when receiving an RRC response message as shown in fig.2 wherein RRC Resume for SDT is performed and the UE receives an RRC response from the network, which would stop the timer utilized for SDT, as discussed with regard to the 112 rejection above.
Additionally, the disclosure of Xu was utilized for teaching that the first and second timers can be stopped when receiving an RRC_RESPONSE message, and not Agiwal.
The disclosure of Xu teaches starting, restarting, and stopping of first and/or second timers in order to control the RRC_RESUME/SDT process. Wherein in Xu a first timer is started and can be restarted and/or stopped in order for a second timer to commence, which may also be started, restarted, or stopped. For example, in par.[0136] teaches the starting, restarting, or stopping, or a first and second timer based upon predetermined conditions, the timers are different, but are allowed to control the RRC_CONNECTION_RESUME procedure.
The applicants allegation that the combination of reference is improper is unpersuasive, as the applicants allege that the timers work differently in Agiwal and Xu, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the references. However, the motivation for combining references can be that the references are analogous to one another and are directed to the same problem of controlling an RRC_RESUME procedure, see MPEP 2143.01(II). Additionally, the Applicants allegation that the timer is only restarted when another timer is started is false, as the disclosure of Xu at par.[0136] explicitly discloses stopping a timer and starting another timer, which is the solution discussed in Agiwal. Thus, it is shown a proper motivation to combine the reference on basis’s, and the rejection is sustained. As the combination of Agiwal in view of Xu teach implicitly and/or explicitly the claim limitations, the rejection of the claims are sustained in view of the rejections above.
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