DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. The instant application claims priority is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2021/071891, International Filing Date: 01/14/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted, IDS - 07/13/2023 and 10/03/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 14 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.
6. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “Application Server (AS) algorithm” in claim 14 is used by the claim to mean “receive the UE’s Kgnb and/or Application Server (AS) algorithm” while the accepted meaning is “Access Stratum algorithm.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Further regarding the term used “AS Algorithm” as acronym in the specification [0038, 0040, 0043, 0207] and Fig. 8; Details of AS algorithm and 5G AS security context regarding the key and token authentication/validation can be found [0048-0049, 0054-0056] without full form of acronym; In the claim, ‘receive the UE’s Kgnb’ should be associated with security encryption algorithm that Access stratum (AS) security algorithm. There can be application server used as authentication server yet specification didn’t include anything rather only referred acronym AS algorithm associated with the UE’s Kgnb that is between the UE and the BS that clearly defines as Access stratum (AS) security algorithm.
7. For clarification regard the specification the disclosure includes “3GPP” section 5.3.1.2 page-52, page-77 provides details access stratum (AS) security algorithm and AS security configuration page-281.
8. Further, regarding the AS security control and authorization: NAS may refer to the functionality operating between a CN and a UE, and AS may refer to the functionality operating between the UE and a RAN. And, applicant claims specify between the UE and the BS/RAN.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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 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.
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or
in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151,
or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section
122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another
inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention.
11. Claims 1-3, 5, 12, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Shih et al. (US-20220095410-A1, provisional-63081443 as prov-443 and provisional-63081448 as prov-448 dt 09/22/2020, disclosure provided from published and provisional-application documents) hereinafter “Shih”.
Regarding Claim 1,
Shih discloses, ‘A user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: determine a radio link failure (RLF) happens in a small data transmission (SDT) procedure’ ‘(A UE comprises processor and memory, Fig. 3 (and prov-448 Fig. 3). The UE can detect RLF during SDT [0393], prov-448, page-12 [0028-0030]. And, identify or determine as disclosed: detection of RLF includes timer expired, random access issue, maximum number of retransmission exceeded, beam failure, and LBT failure [0313-0327], (prov-448 page-6 [0020-0030]));
And discloses, ‘and perform a procedure in response to the happening of the RLF in an SDT procedure.’ (in response to RLF and issues during SDT following actions as part of recovery procedures are taken to solve the issue: stop/suspend ongoing SDT in response to detection. For beam failure detection can initiate beam failure recovery and initiate random access procedure; transmit an indication of BFR MAC CE and if recovery is successful then resume SDT. For RLF can stop ongoing SDT procedure and perform cell selection/re-selection and initiate RRC resume procedure without SDT; [0328, 0391-0396], (prov-448. page-12 [0026-0043]);)
Regarding Claim 2,
‘The claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Shih discloses, ‘wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to have the following happen:
‘a random access problem’;
‘achieving of maximum number of retransmission in radio link control (RLC)’;
‘a beam failure recovery failure; [[and]] a listen before talk (LBT) failure or a combination thereof.’ (detection of RLF disclosed above in Claim 2 and further, expiry of timer, random access problem, LBT and maximum number of retransmission, [0313-0330] and (prov-448 page-12 [0026-0043]);)
Regarding Claim 3,
‘The UE of Claim 1 (disclosed above),
Shih discloses, ‘wherein the RLF happens in the SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering an radio resource control (RRC) resume procedure in a non-SDT random access channel (RACH) procedure, triggering an RRC resume procedure in a RACH based SDT procedure or a configured grant (CG) based SDT procedure, triggering an RRC reestablishment procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure, or triggering an RRC reestablishment procedure in a RACH based SDT procedure or a CG based SDT procedure.’ (Disclosure, RRC resume without SDT [0393], prov-448 page-12 [0038-0039];
If beam failure detected during SDT, the UE stop/suspend SDT and initiate beam failure recovery assisted by NW and initiate random access BFR MAC CE and if successful can resume the ongoing SDT [0391-0396], and (prov-448, page-12 [0028-0034]) and follow SDT RACH-based scheme (prov-448, page-3 [0008]);
Regarding the RRC resume there are few procedures included: resume by random access; resume to RRC connected to a different or a new gNB than previous in which RRC suspended prov-448 page-10 [0032-0033]; can follow RRC random access and configured grant as baseline approach, prov-448 page-3 [0032];
And, SDT configured grant prov-448, page-11 [0007]; In RRC connected if there is a RLF occurs, then UE may initiate a RRC connection re-establishment prov-448, page-14[0003]).
Regarding Claim 5,
‘The UE of claim 3’,
Shih discloses, ‘wherein triggering the RRC resume procedure in the non-SDT RACH procedure, in the RACH based SDT procedure, or in the CG based SDT procedure comprises: transmitting an RRC resume request to a serving base station (BS), wherein the RRC resume request includes an inactive-radio network temporary identifier (I-RNTI) of the UE and a resume cause value.’ (initiate RRC resume procedure without SDT; perform a cell selection or reselection and resume current configuration includes RNTI and cell identity; [0126, 0393, 0422], prov-448, page-15 [0021,0022, 0036, 0037]).
Regarding Claim 12,
‘The UE of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Shih discloses, ‘wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit a request message to request resumption or reestablishment of a data radio bearer (DRB) or a signaling radio bearer (SRB) in SDT procedure, wherein an explicit or implicit indication is included in the request message.’ (The UE transmit a request message for resumption similar disclosure for both original (Fig. 5-6 (previous prior art), Fig. 10 and 11 for SDT) and the prov-443 (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2); this is part of SDT RACH based scheme uses RACH and CG; And, RLC bearer configuration [0065-0066] prov-443, page-3; RRC re-establishment when RLF [0348, 0413] prov-448 page-10)
Regarding Claim 13,
Shih discloses, ‘A base station (BS) comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the BS to: receive a radio resource control (RRC) request message with or without inactive-radio network temporary identifier (I-RNTI) of the a user equipment (UE) from the UE, and transmit a retrieve UE context request message to an anchor BS or a BS with the last serving cell.’ (The BS receive RRC request message RRC resume procedure and context includes: anchor/BS, [0065-0066] Fig. 5-6 and Fig. 10-11 and (prov-443, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, page-3); initiate RRC resume procedure in previous cell; store or replace UE context configuration includes RNTI; resume request message and restore part of RRC configuration prov-448 page-10 [0038-0039], page-15) [0036]);
Regarding Claim 16,
Shih discloses, ‘A processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to: determine a radio link failure (RLF) happens in a small data transmission (SDT) procedure; and perform a procedure in response to the happening of the RLF in an SDT procedure.’ (Identical to claim 1 disclosed above only inclusion apparatus for the Wireless communication. The transceiver of communication device for Access network comprising: controller circuit, a process and a memory Fig. 1-3 and prov-442, Fig. A1-A3;)
Regarding Claim 17,
Identical to claim 1 disclosed above only inclusion of method claim for the UE, ‘A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining a radio link failure (RLF) happens in a small data transmission (SDT) procedure; and performing a procedure in response to the happening of the RLF in an SDT procedure.’
Regarding Claim 18,
‘The method of claim 17’ (disclosed above),
Identical to Claim 2 disclosed above, ‘wherein determining the RLF happens comprises determining: expiry of a timer; a random access problem; achieving of maximum number of retransmission in radio link control (RLC); a beam failure recovery failure; a listen before talk (LBT) failure; or a combination thereof.’
Regarding Claim 19,
‘The method of claim 17’ (disclosed above),
Identical to Claim 3 disclosed above, ‘wherein the RLF happens in the SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering a radio resource control (RRC) resume procedure in a non-SDT random access channel (RACH) procedure, triggering an RRC resume procedure in a RACH based SDT procedure or a configured grant (CG) based SDT procedure, triggering an RRC reestablishment procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure, or triggering an RRC reestablishment procedure in a RACH based SDT procedure or a CG based SDT procedure.’
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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
he claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner
in which the invention was made.
14. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
• Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
• Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
• Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
• 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.
16. Claims 4, 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. in view of Tseng et al. (US-20230180223-A1, provisional 63/024,409 05/13/2020 as prov-499 provided with main disclosure) hereinafter “Tseng”.
Regarding Claim 4,
‘The UE of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Shih discloses, ‘wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform actions so that performing-
For RLF detection till maximum number of random access exceeds a threshold can perform alternatively 2-step to 4-step contention based, prov-448, page-13 [0023-0024];
And didn’t disclose, ‘the RLF happens in a 2-step RACH based SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering a 4-step RACH based SDT procedure’
Tseng in the same field of endeavor discloses, SDT and uses RACH can switch to alternative RACH includes: if random access procedure with 2-step RA type is not completed after a number of MSG A transmissions, the UE may be configured to switch to CBRA with a 4-step RA type for (Uplink) small packet transmission prov-409, page-34 [0023-0024] );
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Shih and to include with that of Tseng to come up with the claim invention;
Disclosure of Shih includes RLF detection can be due to RACH and includes SDT base line RACH scheme 2-step and 4-step [0065-0066] and [0313] (prov-448, Page-6 [0023] and page-3 [0008]);
Someone would be motivated to include to switch to 4-step when 2-step could not be completed due to RLF; This would enhance the reliability, high data rate and latency for SDT for low latency device.
Shih discloses, ‘the RLF happens in a 4-step RACH based SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering a radio resource control (RRC) resume procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure or triggering an RRC reestablishment procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure’ (When RLF detected and RACH issues [0404] prov-448, page-13 [0023-0024]; Perform RRC resume procedure without SDT in a newly selected cell; determine maximum number of RACH exceeded; and the UE initiate RRC connection re-establishment procedure [0393, 0404, 0413] prov-448, page-12 [0026-0043] and page-14 [0003-0004]);
Shih discloses, ‘the RLF happens in a SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering an RRC resume procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure or triggering an RRC reestablishment procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure’ (initiate RRC resume procedure without SDT [0393], prov-448, page-15 [0021]);
And didn’t disclose, ‘[[or]] the RLF happens in a SDT procedure, the UE performs fallback to following procedure in an order of priority of: a CG based SDT procedure, a 2-step RACH based SDT procedure, a 4-step RACH based SDT procedure, a 2- step RACH based procedure, a 4-setp RACH based procedure if the corresponding procedure is available to the UE or a combination thereof.’
Tseng in the same field of endeavor discloses, Disclosure includes specific fallback mechanism and certain options set to select for CG based SDT or random access procedures. An explicit instruction transmitted from the serving cell whether the UE is allowed to fall back from a UL CG based configured grant to random access for SDT when RLC failure events; if the UE is allowed to fallback to random access procedure for SDT for specific events; if the CG grant is not available then apply dedicated random access; otherwise the UE fallback to SDT apply common random access; automatic re-transmission of SDT on pending packet; the UE may not be allowed to fallback to ARQ re-transmission; the UE configured with UL CG configurations for re-transmission of a pending packet and allowed to transmitted UL CG; Disclosure, [0182-0189] and prov-409, table-4 page-20-22; regarding switches from 2-step to 4-step RACH disclosed above prov-409, page-34 [0023-0024];)
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Shih and to include with that of Tseng to come up with the claim invention;
Disclosure Shih includes baseline for SDT uses CG and random access; multiple transmission for SDT without transition to RRC connected. For random access procedure, there can be dedicated resources beside applying common resources.
Someone would be motivated to have inclusive options to apply as part of fallback mechanism: CG, RACH 2-step and 4-step with common and dedicated resources. That is an event based RRC management approach while RLC failure occurs; this would increase the reliability of transmission for SDT.
Regarding Claim 6,
‘The UE of claim 5’,
Shih discloses, ‘wherein the resume cause value includes information of: an RLF in SDT; a random access problem’; achieving of maximum number of retransmission in radio link control (RLC); a beam failure recovery failure; a listen before talk (LBT) failure’; (Resume procedure due to beam failure, RACH issues and detection of RLF in SDT includes: RACH, maximum number of retransmission exceeded and LBT failure, [0313-0320] and prov-448, page-6 [0022-0024];)
And didn’t disclose, ‘[[and]] resume or reestablish a data radio bearer (DRB and/or signaling radio bearer (SRB) for SDT; or a combination thereof.’
Tseng in the same field of endeavor discloses, RRC management and resume procedure: different radio bearer configuration and RRC resume/re-establishment to serving cell AS security and restore/re-establishes bearer configurations e.g., SRBs/DRBs, [0050] [0129-0130], [0146,0150] and prov-409 table 1-1, page-5, page-10 [0008-0009], table 1-2, page-17 [0020] page-32 [0025]
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Shih and to modify with that of Tseng to come up with the claim invention;
Shih discloses bearer configuration in SDT. And, resume and re-establishment procedures.
Someone would be motivated to include the DRB/SRB for resume and re-establishment. This would reduce the response time for RRC management and resolve the events occurs due to beam, RLF, RACH and maximum number of retransmission.
Regarding Claim 20,
‘The method of claim 17’ (disclosed above),
Identical to Claim 4 disclosed above, ‘wherein performing the procedure comprises: the RLF happens in a configured grant (CG) based SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering a random access channel (RACH) based SDT procedure, wherein the RACH based SDT procedure is a 2-step RACH based SDT procedure or a 4-step RACH based SDT procedure; the RLF happens in a 2-step RACH based SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering a 4-step RACH based SDT procedure; the RLF happens in a 4-step RACH based SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering a radio resource control (RRC) resume procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure or triggering an RRC reestablishment procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure; the RLF happens in a SDT procedure, and performing the procedure comprises: triggering an RRC resume procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure or triggering an RRC reestablishment procedure in a non-SDT RACH procedure; the RLF happens in a SDT procedure, the UE performs fallback to following procedure in an order of priority of: a CG based SDT procedure, a 2-step RACH based SDT procedure, a 4-step RACH based SDT procedure, a 2- -8- step RACH based procedure, a 4-setp RACH based procedure if the corresponding procedure is available to the UE; or a combination thereof.’
17. Claims 7-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. in view of Tseng et al. and further 3GPP TS 38.331 V16.1.0. 2020-07 “5G NR Radio Resource Control (RRC) Protocol specification” hereinafter “3GPP”.
Regarding Claim 7,
‘The UE of claim 3’ (disclosed above),
Shih discloses, ‘wherein triggering the RRC reestablishment procedure in the non-SDT RACH procedure, in the RACH based SDT procedure, or in the CG based SDT procedure comprises:’ (disclosed above claim 3 and further SDT based line scheme RACH and CG includes serving cell; for RLF initiates re-establishment procedure further referred to 3GPP TS 83.331 v.16.1.0 section 5.3.7 [0348] prov-448 page-3 [0032-003]’) and
Didn’t disclose, ‘transmitting an RRC reestablishment request to a serving BS, wherein the RRC reestablishment request includes an inactive-radio network temporary identifier (I-RNTI) of the UE.’
3GPP in the same field of endeavor disclosure non-SDT that is normal/regular data tx and RRC re-establishment procedures includes communication between the UE and the BS, Figure 5.3.7.1-2: RRC re-establishment, fallback to RRC establishment, successful. Valid UE context re-activate AS security, section 5.3.7.1 page-95; if the procedure was initiated due to RLF; set the identity and set the MAC-I, page-98 [0001, 0009], section 5.3.7.4;
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Shih and to include with that of 3GPP to come up with the claim invention;
Shih discloses to initiate the RRC re-establishment request and mentioned the 3GPP spec. someone would further include the RNTI. Motive to include details procedures of RRC re-establishment when RLF occurs and include as part of claims. This would increase the reliability of transmission when RLF occurs in SDT; alternatively transmit in non-SDT RRC re-establishment.
Regarding Claim 8,
‘The UE of claim 7’ (disclosed above),
Shih though discloses, ‘the PCell is a cell the UE has service in the SDT procedure.’ (Due to RLF, radio link monitoring configuration of the source PCell [0313, 0318, 0325] prov-448, page-7 [0011])
And didn’t disclose, ‘wherein a message authentication code-integrity (MAC-I) is included in the RRC reestablishment request, and is computed based on inputs of source-c-RNTI and source PhysCellId, wherein the source-c-RNTI is set to cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) that the UE had in the a physical cell (PCell) it was connected to prior to the reestablishment, wherein the sourcePhysCellId is set to a physical cell identity of the PCell the UE was connected to prior to the reestablishment,’
3GPP in the same field of endeavor disclose, Actions related to RRC reestablishment includes: due to RLF set the reestablishment celID, set the UE-identity; set the c-RNTI to the C-RNTI used in the source PCell (reconfiguration with sync or mobility; set the physCellId to the physical cell identity of the source PCell; input from the authentication MAC-I, page-98 [0001, 0009], section 5.3.7.4; For RRC reestablishment integrity protection applied page-871 )
Motive to include would be identical to claim 7 disclosed above.
Regarding Claim 9,
‘The UE of claim 5’ (disclosed above),
3GPP discloses, ‘wherein a message authentication code-integrity (MAC-I) is included in the RRC resume request and is transmitted based on inputs of source-c-RNTI and sourcePhysCellId, wherein the source-c-RNTI is set to cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) that the UE had in a PCell it was connected’ (disclosed above in claim 5 and actions of RRC resume request section 5.3.13.1 and 5.3.13.3; resumeidentity, RNTI, resumeMAC-input, integrity protection; RRC resume includes fullconfig C-RNTI and DRB configuration page-115-116),
and in non-SDT(without SDT regular DT) procedure,
‘or C-RNTI that the UE had in a PCell it was connected to prior to suspension of [[the]]’ and ‘a data radio bearer(DRB), wherein the sourcePhysCellId is set to [[the]] a physical cell identity of the serving Cell the UE was connected’ in non-SDT (regular DT) procedure, ‘or the physical cell identity of the serving Cell the UE was connected to prior to suspension of the DRB.’ (similar disclosed above in claim 8; and only DRBs with previously configured integrity protection shall resume; Figure 5.3.13.1-4: RRC connection resume followed by network suspend and RRC resumption procedure: provide access identity page-115-116 )
And didn’t disclose, ‘SDT’ procedures regarding the claim element disclosed by Shih.
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Shih and to include with that of 3GPP to come up with the claim invention;
Motive to include RRC resume procedure in AS-context and adapt security features: actions RRC resume request as described in non-SDT to incorporate in SDT while RLF occurs that would increase security capability if AS security activated.
Regarding Claim 10,
‘The UE of claim1’ (disclosed above),
Regarding the claim element, ‘wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to store an access category for RLF in [[the]] a SDT procedure based RRC connection resumption’ (disclosed above in claim 1);
Shih though discloses, ‘‘wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to store’ and ‘or RLF in [[the]] a SDT procedure based RRC connection resumption’ (disclosed above in claim 1 and claim 3);
And 3GPP discloses, ‘and perform access control by applying the access category in an RRC connection resumption procedure.’ (RRC connection resume section 5.3.13.3 includes access control to apply in the access category for normal data tx to apply when RLF page-114 [0005], page-119; Further, to resume of the RRC connection for normal data tx as part of unified access control, page-114;)
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Shih and to include with that of Tseng to come up with the claim invention;
Motive to include in the claim and to provide details actions as described by 3GPP for non-SDT; someone would further include in SDT. Disclosure of Shih includes RRC resume procedures for with and without SDT [0430], prov-448, page-15 [0018].
Regarding Claim 11,
‘The UE of claim 10’ (disclosed above),
Regarding the claim element, ‘wherein the access category for RLF in the SDT procedure is a value the same as a unified access control (UAC) category of radio access network-based notification area (RNA)-updating, or the access category for RLF in the SDT procedure reuses an access category of service which the UE decides to resume, or the access category for RLF in the SDT procedure reuses an access category used in SDT procedure when RLF is triggered.’
Shih discloses similar to claim 10, ‘or the access category for RLF in the SDT procedure reuses an access category of service which the UE decides to resume, or the access category for RLF in the SDT procedure reuses an access category used in SDT procedure when RLF is triggered’,
And further to include 3GPP, ‘‘wherein the access category for RLF’ in the non-SDT procedure, ’is a value the same as a unified access control (UAC) category of radio access network-based notification area (RNA)-updating,’ (page-114, 120-121, section 5.3.13.8)
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Shih and to include with that of Tseng to come up with the claim invention; Motive to include would be identical to Claim 10 disclosed above.
Regarding Claim 14,
‘The BS of claim 13’ (disclosed above),
Regarding the claim element, ‘wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the BS to: transmit cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) of the UE, a token and an identifier (ID of a target cell to a BS with a last serving cell in the retrieve UE context request message to the BS with the last serving cell such that the BS with the last serving BS validates the token in the RRC request message and give a validation indication on the request to the BS with the serving cell or to an anchor BS’;
Shih discloses, ‘wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the BS to: transmit cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) of the UE’, and ‘an identifier (ID of a target cell to a BS with a last serving cell in the retrieve UE context request message to the BS with the last serving cell such that the BS with the last serving BS’ (initiate RRC resume procedure and UE context includes: cell identifier/identity and security keys for authentication while in RRC inactive that is implicit validation and authentication procedures; [0175, 0439] prov-448 page-10 [0038-0039], page-15) [0036]);
And didn’t disclose, ‘Token’ in the resume procedure and ‘validates the token in the RRC request message and give a validation indication on the request to the BS with the serving cell or to an anchor BS’
3GPP in the same field of endeavor as part of comprehensive RRC resume procedures includes in the spec with RRC Resume Request IE-field descriptions that is to implement in the code segment as functions with RRCResumeRequest declared with variables: resume identity and resumeMAC-I parameters authentication token to facility UE authentication at gNB when function RRC Resume Request is validated with an appropriate token; see RRCResuemeRequest-IE includes: Authentication token to facilitate UE authentication at gNB. The 16 least significant bits of the MAC-I calculated using the AS security configuration page-281-282; Further, ShortI-RNTI-Value information element: The IE ShortMAC-I is used to identify and verify the UE at RRC connection re-establishment. The 16 least significant bits of the MAC-I calculated using the AS security configuration of the source PCell page 610; ShortMAC-I IE function;
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Shih and to include with that of 3GPP to come up with the claim invention;
Motive to include would be identical to claim 5 and claim 9; Further, to include details procedures of security encryption algorithm as disclosed by 3GPP as part of UE context and AS security context. This would enhance security capability adapt security protection features while perform UE context request.
And 3GPG discloses, ‘or receive the UE's KgNB and/or [[the]] application server(AS) algorithms used in last serving cell from an anchor BS or from the BS with the last serving cell.’ (RRC resume procedure: KgNB AS context and configured integrity protection algorithm applied to all subsequent messages received and sent by the UE page-116; And, can include: MCG and SCG).
Regarding Claim 15,
‘The BS of claim 14’ (disclosed above)’,
Shih discloses, ‘wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the BS to comprising: receive a’ security keys of current configuration of AS context [0439], and prov-449, page-15 [0036];
And didn’t disclose the ‘validation indication on the request from the anchor BS or from the BS with the last serving cell’
3GPP discloses, RRC resume procedure: receive key in the UE AS context and previously configured integrity protection algorithm and derive the KgNB key based on the current KgNB key page-116; and RRC resume procedure includes MCG/SCG page-116; Resume MAC-I includes procedures for validation and authentication as part of RRC-Resume-Request-IE functions; that includes authentication token to facilitate UE authentication at gNB and AS security configuration;
Motive to include identical to claim 14 disclosed above as part of UE context and adapt AS security context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
Huang et al. (US-20210307073-A1) “Method and apparatus for random access preamble partition for small data transmission in a wireless communication system”; Receive random access configuration from a BS includes: 4-step random access without small data, 2-step random access without small data, 4-step random access with small data, or 2-step random access with small data, disclosure claim 5.
Kim et al., (US20240349381A1), “Radio Link Bearer Configuration”; For clarity regarding Access Stratum (AS) as illustrated Fig. 1B, 5G-CN access mobility management function (AMF) and UPF; NAS security control and AS security control; 3GPP access network access authentication, access authorization and network slicing; NAS may refer to the functionality operating between a CN and a UE, and AS may refer to the functionality operating between the UE and a RAN [0054-0056] and Fig. 1B.
Escott et al.,( US11895723B2) “Method, apparatus, and system for reestablishing radio communication links due to radio link failure”; Fig. 8 includes RLF and initiates RRC connection re-establishment request and further switch between RAN; To resolve RLF the UE uses signaling connections (e.g., control plane) to carry user plane data and there is no access stratum (AS) security or AS security keys; While RRC re-establishment procedure: authentication and validation done between RAN and mobility management entity to the core network; Code segment uses performs procedures and function uses token;
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached
on (571) 272-7969. 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.
/S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466