Detailed Action
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
2. In this Office Action, claims 1, 3-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
3. In Remarks, applicant presents the argument for the amended claim limitations “In connection with the VoLTE call ending, allocating a new bearer ID value for a next VoLTE call based on existence of one or more unused bearer ID values for a current key or performing key generation based on no unused bearer ID values existing for the current key”.
However, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly cited prior art as explained in the claim rejection section set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao Pub. No.: US 2016/0219644 A1 in view of Gage Pub. No.: US 2019/0253881 A1 and Basu Mallick et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0366175 A1.
Claim 1
Zhao discloses a method (fig. 3-9 for handling voice over LTE VoLTE call continuity) of providing Voice over Long-Term Evolution (VoLTE) Packet Data Conversion Protocol (PDCP) protection (LTE network for PDCP evidence in fig. 3 and par. 0047), comprising:
connecting a User Equipment (UE) Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection (establishing VoLTE call in 715 in fig. 7 would be in RRC connected state as explained in par. 0031; steps 705-715 in fig. 7 for RRC connecting are evidenced by step 740 to perform RRC reestablishment and step 765 to enter RRC Idle state); and
providing a VoLTE call (VoLTE call in 715 and continuing VoLTE call in 725 in fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Zhao does not disclose: “in connection with the VoLTE call ending, allocating a new bearer ID value for a next VoLTE call based on existence of one or more unused bearer ID values for a current key or performing key generation based on no unused bearer ID values existing for the current key”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “in connection with the VoLTE call ending, allocating a new bearer ID value for a next VoLTE call based on existence of one or more unused bearer ID values for a current key”, initially, “when the VoLTE call has ended” is herein to be considered as voice over LTE network is ended or moves to other RAT networks or even switched to different LTE networks. Alternatively, it’s determining if unused bearer or unused bearer change is required. In fact, Zhao shows ending VoLTE call in 730 in fig. 7 and condition for transferring VoLTE call in 960 in fig. 9. See MPEP 2111.04, II Contingent Limitations. Thus, to show the claim obviousness, the prior art only needs to show the obviousness of the claimed feature “unused bearer value for a current key” in the claim. In particular, Gage teaches DL count value or UL count value corresponding to DRB, i.e., data resource bearer (par. 0175 & 0184) and after synchronizing with a target cell, determining that if DRB key change requires, to reset the UL COUNT value for the corresponding DRB (1108 in fig. 11 and par. 0221). It means that if DRB key is unused, so does corresponding bearer or UL COUNT value or DL COUNT value. For these reasons, GAGE renders the addressing claim limitation obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify VoLTE call continuity of Zhao by providing user plane security as taught in Gage to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided user plane security to manage cryptographic key changes in a wireless communication so that cryptographic operations would be coordinated or synchronized in a wireless device and in RAN node from an older generation key to a newer generation key as suggested in par. 0013 & 0015-0016 of Gage.
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “performing key generation based on no unused bearer ID values existing for the current key”, recall that Zhao explains assigning, as to allocating, bearer in accordance with QoS class indicator QCI 5-9 (par. 0027 & 0042). And hence, it’s typical to allocate the dedicated bearer assigned for VoLTE in fig. 9 of Zhao after transferring a VoLTE call or after call is ended. In addition, Gage explains DL COUNT value or UL COUNT value corresponding to DRB (par. 0175 & 0184) and selecting unused key to set KSI for a DRB changed or UL COUNT value or DL COUNT value are assigned or as to allocating, to derive a new key K* (1108 in fig. 11 and par. 0175 & par. 0189-0190). To advance the prosecution, other way for unused bearer to be a new bearer as refreshing. In particular, Basu Mallick teaches new S-KeNB and refreshing counter value, and RB-ID reuse (fig. 13-16, see par. 0162 & 0915-0196). For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combination of Zhao, Gage and Basu Mallick to perform equally well to the addressing claim limitation “when there are unused bearer ID values for the current key, allocating a new bearer ID value for a next VoLTE call”. See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify VoLTE call continuity of Zhao in view of Gage by providing security key derivation in dual connectivity as taught in Basu Mallick to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment UE to utilize the resource from two eNBs so that security protection for data signaling data would not breached by optimizing the bearer form the dual connectivity as suggested in par. 0113-0115 of Basu Mallick.
Claim 3
Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising resetting a used bearer list (Gage, step 1108 in fig. 11 for resetting DL PDCP COUNT, resetting UL PDCP COUNT in step 1110 in fig. 11, reconnect that DL PDCP COUNT or UL PDCP COUNT corresponds to DRB; for these reasons, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 4
Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, discloses the method of claim 1 wherein performing key generation comprises performing horizontal key generation with an eNodeB (Gage, see fig. 7-8 in view of 10-13 and horizontal key derivation explained in par. 0108-0109; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 5
Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, discloses the method of claim 1 wherein performing key generation comprises performing vertical key generation with a core network (Gage, see fig. 7-8 in view of 10-13 and vertical key derivation explained in par. 0108, 0110-0111; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 6
Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising reinitializing a COUNT keystream component to zero when a bearer is allocated (Gage, resetting DL PDCP COUNT value in step 1008 of fig. 11 and resetting UL PDCP COUNT value in step 1110 of fig. 11 would yield zero or start with highest order based on a system design for ascending order or descending order; therefore, with teaching from the combined prior art, claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 7
Zhao discloses a system (LTE system in fig. 3-4 & 6-9) providing Voice over Long-Term Evolution (VoLTE) Packet Data Conversion Protocol (PDCP) protection (LTE network for PDCP evidence in fig. 3 and par. 0047), comprising:
an eNodeB (eNB 112A in fig. 3-6) including Radio Resource Control (RRC) (establishing VoLTE call in 715 in fig. 7 would be in RRC connected state as explained in par. 0031; 715 in fig. 7 for RRC connecting is evidenced by step 740 to perform RRC reestablishment and step 765 to enter RRC Idle state);
wherein the eNodeB receives a VoLTE call (VoLTE call established in fig. 3-4 & 6 and VoLTE call in 715 of fig. 7 and continuing VoLTE in 725 of fig. 7).
Although Zhao does not disclose: “in connection with the VoLTE call ending, allocating a new bearer ID value for a next VoLTE call based on existence of one or more unused bearer ID values for a current key or performing key generation based on no unused bearer ID values existing for the current key”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “in connection with the VoLTE call ending, allocating a new bearer ID value for a next VoLTE call based on existence of one or more unused bearer ID values for a current key”, initially, “when the VoLTE call has ended” is herein to be considered as voice over LTE network is ended or moves to other RAT networks or even switched to different LTE networks. Alternatively, it’s determining if unused bearer or unused bearer change is required. In fact, Zhao shows ending VoLTE call in 730 in fig. 7 and condition for transferring VoLTE call in 960 in fig. 9. See MPEP 2111.04, II Contingent Limitations. Thus, to show the claim obviousness, the prior art only needs to show the obviousness of the claimed feature “unused bearer value for a current key” in the claim. In particular, Gage teaches DL count value or UL count value corresponding to DRB, i.e., data resource bearer (par. 0175 & 0184) and after synchronizing with a target cell, determining that if DRB key change requires, to reset the UL COUNT value for the corresponding DRB (1108 in fig. 11 and par. 0221). It means that if DRB key is unused, so does corresponding bearer or UL COUNT value or DL COUNT value. For these reasons, GAGE renders the addressing claim limitation obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify VoLTE call continuity of Zhao by providing user plane security as taught in Gage to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided user plane security to manage cryptographic key changes in a wireless communication so that cryptographic operations would be coordinated or synchronized in a wireless device and in RAN node from an older generation key to a newer generation key as suggested in par. 0013 & 0015-0016 of Gage.
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “performing key generation based on no unused bearer ID values existing for the current key”, recall that Zhao explains assigning, as to allocating, bearer in accordance with QoS class indicator QCI 5-9 (par. 0027 & 0042). And hence, it’s typical to allocate the dedicated bearer assigned for VoLTE in fig. 9 of Zhao after transferring a VoLTE call or after call is ended. In addition, Gage explains DL COUNT value or UL COUNT value corresponding to DRB (par. 0175 & 0184) and selecting unused key to set KSI for a DRB changed or UL COUNT value or DL COUNT value are assigned or as to allocating, to derive a new key K* (1108 in fig. 11 and par. 0175 & par. 0189-0190). To advance the prosecution, other way for unused bearer to be a new bearer as refreshing. In particular, Basu Mallick teaches new S-KeNB and refreshing counter value, and RB-ID reuse (fig. 13-16, see par. 0162 & 0915-0196). For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combination of Zhao, Gage and Basu Mallick to perform equally well to the addressing claim limitation “when there are unused bearer ID values for the current key, allocating a new bearer ID value for a next VoLTE call”. See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify VoLTE call continuity of Zhao in view of Gage by providing security key derivation in dual connectivity as taught in Basu Mallick to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment UE to utilize the resource from two eNBs so that security protection for data signaling data would not breached by optimizing the bearer form the dual connectivity as suggested in par. 0113-0115 of Basu Mallick.
Claim 9
Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, discloses the system of claim 8 further comprising the eNodeB resetting a used bearer list inf perming key generation (Gage, step 1108 in fig. 11 for resetting DL PDCP COUNT in par. 0188-0190, herein, DL PDCP COUNT corresponds to DRB as explained par. 0182; Basu Mallick, par. 0162 and new key and refreshing counter in fig. 13-15) for these reasons, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 10
Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, discloses the system of claim 8 wherein performing key generation comprises performing horizontal key generation with the eNodeB (Gage, see fig. 7-8 in view of 10-13 and horizontal key derivation explained in par. 0108-0109; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 11
Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, discloses the system of claim 8 wherein performing key generation comprises performing vertical key generation with a core network (Gage, see fig. 7-8 in view of 10-13 and vertical key derivation explained in par. 0108, 0110-0111; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 12
Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, discloses the system of claim 1 further comprising reinitializing a COUNT keystream component to zero when a bearer is allocated (Gage, resetting DL PDCP COUNT value in step 1008 of fig. 11 and resetting UL PDCP COUNT value in step 1110 of fig. 11 would yield zero or start with highest order based on a system design for ascending order or descending order; therefore, with teaching from the combined prior art, claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 13, and 15-18
Claims 13 and 15-18 are computer product claims corresponding to method claims 1, 3-6. All of the limitations in claims 13 and 15-18 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of claims 1 and 3-6. Accordingly, claims 13 and 15-18 are considered obvious by the same rationales presented in the rejections of claims 1 and 3-6 respectively set forth above.
7. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Gage, Basu Mallick and Annam et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0098258 A1.
Claim 19
Although Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, does not disclose “the method of claim 4 further comprising ignoring a plurality of status report requests from the UE”, claim 19 is considered obvious by the rationales found in Annam.
In particular, Annam teaches to ignore the report including a value for the parameter (par. 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify VoLTE call continuity of Zhao in view of Gage and Basu Mallick by providing inter-RAT mobility measurement as taught in Annam to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided inter-RAT mobility measurement to support a user equipment UE connectivity so that the UE could be able to efficiently move to a network with the different radio access technologies as suggested in par. 0003-0004 of Annam.
Claim 20
Although Zhao, in view of Gage and Basu Mallick, does not disclose “the system of claim 10 wherein the eNodeB is further configured to ignore a plurality of status report requests from the UE”, claim 19 is considered obvious by the rationales found in Annam.
In particular, Annam teaches to ignore the report including a value for the parameter (par. 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify VoLTE call continuity of Zhao in view of Gage and Basu Mallick by providing inter-RAT mobility measurement as taught in Annam to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided inter-RAT mobility measurement to support a user equipment UE connectivity so that the UE could be able to efficiently move to a network with the different radio access technologies as suggested in par. 0003-0004 of Annam.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643