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 Status
Claims 1-17 and 26-28 are pending. Claims 12-14 and 26-28 are withdrawn from consideration in view of Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
Regarding claim 1, the Office Action states on page 3 that Basu-Mallick discloses:
performing a registration through the second RAN node while retaining a stored inactive context related to the first RAN node, thereby having a dual registration to the first RAN node and the second RAN node (p. [0036], lines 1-6 and 22-30; the UE in RRC inactive state save the AS configuration context (i.e., retain context), may tune away to another system (i.e., second RAT) and perform registration there).
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Basu-Mallick describes that an RRC inactive UE may store AS context and tune away to another system; however, this does not teach or suggest performing a registration through a second RAN node while remaining registered in the first RAT. Context retention in an inactive state merely allows later resumption and does not imply concurrent registration or dual registration. Basu-Mallick does not disclose that the UE remains registered with the first RAN node during tune-away, nor that the first RAT continues to maintain the UE in an inactive registered state while registration with a second RAT is performed.
Basu-Mallick is generally directed to "establishing a communication connection between the user equipment and a first one of the multiple networks" and "establishing a communication connection between the user equipment and a second one of the multiple networks via the first one of the multiple networks, while maintaining the communication connection between the user equipment and the first one of the multiple networks." (Basu-Mallick, [0005]). The cited portion of Basu-Mallick reads as follows:
As one embodiment, this can be done in a number of ways. The UE may indicate to the network RAN node that it is dual registration capable at some point in time during or after the RRC Connection Establishment. Later, when the UE actually needs to register on the other system, it will request the RAN Node to release the RRC Connection In yet another possible variant, the UE will request the RAN Node to transition the UE to RRC Inactive state rather than releasing the RRC Connection itself. A UE in RRC Inactive state would save the AS configuration/context until it returns in the RRC Connected state of the said RAT. In the RRC Inactive state, this UE may tune away to another System and perform registration there. After having performed the registration, as soon as possible, the UE shall return to the said source RAT/System. (Basu-Mallick, [0036]).
The quoted portion of Basu-Mallick describes a UE that, after transitioning to an RRC Inactive state, may temporarily tune away to another system in order to perform a registration there, and then return to the source RAT as soon as possible. The described storage of AS configuration/context is expressly for the purpose of allowing the UE to later resume an RRC Connected state with the source RAT after the tune-away operation. Basu-Mallick therefore uses the RRC Inactive state as a transient holding state to facilitate a temporary tune-away and subsequent return, rather than as a mechanism for maintaining concurrent registration states.
In contrast, claim 1 recites performing a registration through a second RAN node while retaining a stored inactive context related to the first RAN node, thereby having a dual registration to the first RAN node and the second RAN node. Claim 1 further recites that the UE enters a state in the second RAT while remaining in the inactive state in the first RAT. This means that the UE remains registered with, and maintained in an inactive state by, the first RAT at the same time that registration through the second RAT is performed, resulting in simultaneous dual registration.
Basu-Mallick does not disclose or suggest such concurrent dual registration. Rather, Basu-Mallick teaches a sequence in which the UE transitions to RRC Inactive, tunes away to another system to perform registration, and then returns to the source RAT, with the stored AS context merely enabling later resumption. Basu-Mallick does not disclose that the UE remains registered with the first RAT while registering with the second RAT, nor that the UE is intentionally maintained in an inactive registered state in the first RAT during registration with the second RAT, as recited in claim 1. (see pages 7-9 of Applicant’s arguments)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Basu-Mallick discloses in paragraph [0036], lines 22-end, that the UE transitions to RRC_INACTIVE rather than releasing the RRC connection with the first system before tuning away to another system. In the RRC_INACTIVE state, the UE would save the AS configuration/context. By transitioning to RRC_INACTIVE, Basu-Mallick implies the UE retains its registration and AS context with the first system as its RRC connection is not released. Further, because the UE performs registration with the second system while still being connected to the first system, Basu-Mallick teaches a dual registration scenario during the tune-away period.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASU-MALLICK et al. (US 2019/0098597) in view of TROTT (US 2018/0027466).
Regarding claim 1, Basu-Mallick discloses a method performed by a User Equipment (Fig. 2, UE), UE, for handling communication with a first Radio Access Network, RAN, node associated with a first Radio Access Technology, RAT (Fig. 2, RAT1), and a second RAN node associated with a second RAT (Fig. 2, RAT2), wherein the UE, the first RAN node and the second RAN node are operating in a wireless communication network (Fig. 2), and wherein the UE is in inactive state in the first RAT when being registered through the first RAN node (p. [0029]; p. [0036], lines 1-6 and 22-30; the UE being registered to one of the system first (i.e., first RAT) and dual registration capable, can request the RAN node to transition to the RRC inactive state), the method comprising:
performing a registration through the second RAN node while retaining a stored inactive context related to the first RAN node, thereby having a dual registration to the first RAN node and the second RAN node (p. [0036], lines 1-6 and 22-30; the UE in RRC inactive state save the AS configuration context (i.e., retain context), may tune away to another system (i.e., second RAT) and perform registration there).
But, Basu-Mallick does not particularly disclose entering a state in the second RAT while remaining in the inactive state in the first RAT.
However, Trott teaches entering a state in the second RAT while remaining in the inactive state in the first RAT (p. [0065]; the UE can enter a Idle state in both networks registered). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Basu-Malleck with the teachings of Trott, since such a modification would allow the UE to perform procedures corresponding to the UE state in both networks that is registered.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein entering a state in the second RAT comprises entering an idle state in the second RAT (p. [0065]; the UE can enter an Idle state in both networks registered). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Basu-Malleck with the teachings of Trott, since such a modification would allow the UE to perform procedures corresponding to the UE idle state in the second network.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott disclose the method according to claim 1, Trott discloses further comprising: selecting or reselecting a cell of the second RAN node (p. [0065]; during the DR-Idle mode, the UE performs conventional LTE cell selection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Basu-Malleck with the teachings of Trott, since such a modification would allow the UE to perform procedures corresponding to the UE idle state in the second network.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott disclose the method according to claim 1, Basu-Malleck discloses wherein the first RAT is related to 5G and the second RAT is related to 4G (p. [0028]), but does not particularly disclose the method further comprising: initiating a Tracking Area Update, TAU, request procedure.
However, Trott teaches the method further comprising: initiating a Tracking Area Update, TAU, request procedure (p. [0065]; during the DR-Idle mode, the UE performs idle mode procedures, including tracking area updates TAU). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Basu-Malleck with the teachings of Trott, since such a modification would allow the UE to perform procedures corresponding to the UE idle state in the second network.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott disclose the method according to claim 1, Basu-Malleck discloses wherein the inactive context is an Access Stratum, AS, inactive context (p. [0036], lines 1-6 and 22-30; the UE in RRC inactive state save the AS configuration context (i.e., retain context)).
Regarding claim 15, Basu-Mallick discloses a User Equipment, UE (Fig. 2, UE), for handling communication with a first Radio Access Network, RAN, node associated with a first Radio Access Technology, RAT (Fig. 2, RAT1), and a second RAN node associated with a second RAT (Fig. 2, RAT2), wherein the UE, the first RAN node and the second RAN node operate in a wireless communication network (Fig. 2), and wherein the UE is in inactive state in the first RAT when being registered through the first RAN node (p. [0029]; p. [0036], lines 1-6 and 22-30; the UE being registered to one of the system first (i.e., first RAT) and dual registration capable, can request the RAN node to transition to the RRC inactive state), the UE is configured to:
perform a registration through the second RAN node while retaining a stored inactive context related to the first RAN node, thereby having a dual registration to the first RAN node and the second RAN node (p. [0036], lines 1-6 and 22-30; the UE in RRC inactive state save the AS configuration context (i.e., retain context), may tune away to another system (i.e., second RAT) and perform registration there).
But, Basu-Mallick does not particularly disclose to enter a state in the second RAT while remaining in the inactive state in the first RAT.
However, Trott teaches UE configured to enter a state in the second RAT while remaining in the inactive state in the first RAT (p. [0065]; the UE can enter a Idle state in both networks registered). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Basu-Malleck with the teachings of Trott, since such a modification would allow the UE to perform procedures corresponding to the UE state in both networks that is registered.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott disclose the UE according to claim 15, Trott discloses wherein entering a state in the second RAT comprises entering an idle state in the second RAT (p. [0065]; the UE can enter an Idle state in both networks registered). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Basu-Malleck with the teachings of Trott, since such a modification would allow the UE to perform procedures corresponding to the UE idle state in the second network.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASU-MALLICK et al. in views of TROTT, and MITRA et al. (US 2016/0095156).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mallick and Trott disclose the method according to claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the performing a registration through the second RAN node comprises maintaining a list of the second RAT in addition to maintaining a list of the first RAT.
However, Mitra teaches a UE maintaining a list of the second RAT in addition to maintaining a list of the first RAT (p. [0026], [0028]-[0030]; the UE maintains a MRU list that include information of networks or cells recently camped on, the UE may maintain one combine MRU list for both RAT 102 and RAT 104, or separate MRU lists for each RAT supported by the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott with the teachings of Mitra, since such a modification would allow the UE to increase the speed of acquiring service and/or cell selection process in various RATs available to the UE.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASU-MALLICK et al. in views of TROTT, and 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #108 (R2-1914532), Title: Signaling enhancement for Inactive State (cited on IDS filed on 08/12/2022), hereinafter 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #108 (R2-1914532).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Basu-Mallick and Trott disclose the method according to claim 6, but does not particularly disclose wherein the maintained list of the second RAT is a tracking area list and the maintained list of the first RAT is based on a Radio access node Notification Area, RNA.
However, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #108 (R2-1914532) teaches a UE provided with a maintained list of a second RAT is a tracking area list and the maintained list of a first RAT is based on a Radio access node Notification Area, RNA (page 1, lines 29-end, proposal 1; page 2, lines 20-21 In order to allow for inter-RAT mobility while in Inactive mode, and able to reach the UE, the UE should be provided with a notification area consisted of both NR and LTE cells (i.e., first and second RAT), for NR, the cell list or TA/RNA list can be provided (i.e., second RAT) and for LTE (i.e., first RAT), is sufficient to provide the TA list). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott with the teachings of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #108 (R2-1914532), since such a modification would support inter-RAT mobility while in Inactive mode and would allow the network to reach the UE when located in either of the first and second RAT.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASU-MALLICK et al. in views of TROTT, and YOUN et al. (US 2018/0376446).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott disclose the method according to claim 1, Basu-Malleck teaches wherein the first RAT is related to 4G and the second RAT is related to 5G (p. [0028]), but does not particularly disclose the method further comprising: - initiating a Mobility Registration Update, MRU, request procedure.
However, Youn teaches initiating a Mobility Registration Update, MRU, request procedure (p. [00315]; Once the UE/user is registered, the UE may update its own registration with the network in order to periodically maintain reachability (periodical registration update) if applicable, upon moving (mobility registration update), or in order to update its own capability or negotiate a protocol parameter again). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott with the teachings of Youn, in order for the UE to update its own registration with the network upon moving and maintain reachability with the network.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASU-MALLICK et al. in views of TROTT, YOUN et al., and 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #108 (R2-1914532), Title: Signaling enhancement for Inactive State (cited on IDS filed on 08/12/2022), hereinafter 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #108 (R2-1914532).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Basu-Mallick, Trott, and Youn disclose the method according to claim 8, but does not particularly disclose wherein the maintained list of the second RAT is based on an RNA and the maintained list of the first RAT is a tracking area list.
However, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #108 (R2-1914532) teaches a UE provided with a maintained list of a second RAT is based on an RNA and the maintained list of a first RAT is a tracking area list (page 1, lines 29-end, proposal 1; page 2, lines 20-21 In order to allow for inter-RAT mobility while in Inactive mode, and able to reach the UE, the UE should be provided with a notification area consisted of both NR and LTE cells (i.e., first and second RAT), for NR, the cell list or TA/RNA list can be provided (i.e., second RAT) and for LTE (i.e., first RAT), is sufficient to provide the TA list). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott with the teachings of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #108 (R2-1914532), since such a modification would support inter-RAT mobility while in Inactive mode and would allow the network to reach the UE when located in either of the first and second RAT.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASU-MALLICK et al. in views of TROTT, and VELEV et al. (US 2019/0357037).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Basu-Mallick and Trott disclose the method according to claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the method is performed when the UE is located on or close to a radio coverage border of the first RAT and the second RAT.
However, Velev teaches wherein the method is performed when the UE is located on or close to a radio coverage border of the first RAT and the second RAT (p. [0072]; the UE may discover NR coverage (i.e., second RAT) and decide to perform DR (i.e., dual registration) mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott with the teachings of Velev, since such a modification would allow initiating a registration procedure with a second RAT when detecting the coverage area of the second RAT.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASU-MALLICK et al. in views of TROTT, and LY Q (WO 2020/247043).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott disclose the method according to claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein entering a state in the second RAT comprises entering an inactive state, in the second RAT.
However, Ly teaches wherein entering a state in the second RAT comprises entering an inactive state, in the second RAT (page 41, lines 13-14; p. [0222]; after successful registration the UE registration state is RM-Inactive or EMM-Inactive, the inactive state the UE is registered with the core network and can receive services from the core network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott with the teachings of Ly, since such a state would allow the UE to be registered with the core network and receive services from the core network after successful registration.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott disclose the UE according to claim 15, but does not particularly disclose wherein entering a state in the second RAT comprises entering an inactive state, in the second RAT.
However, Ly teaches wherein entering a state in the second RAT comprises entering an inactive state, in the second RAT (page 41, lines 13-14; p. [0222]; after successful registration the UE registration state is RM-Inactive or EMM-Inactive, the inactive state the UE is registered with the core network and can receive services from the core network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Basu-Malleck and Trott with the teachings of Ly, since such a state would allow the UE to be registered with the core network and receive services from the core network after successful registration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights