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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. The restriction requirement has been made final in the last office action and therefore, it has not been withdrawn at this time.
Non-elected independent claim 7 is not eligible for rejoinder. MPEP 821.04 states, “In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim”. Independent claim 7 does not depend on any other claim and also, does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1, 3-6, 14, 16-19 are pending, wherein claims 1 and 14 are in independent form.
4. Claims 1, 14, and 18-19 have been amended.
5. Claims 2, 8-9, and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 7, 10-13, and 20-22 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed on 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons set forth below.
7. On page 8 of the remarks, applicant argues, “As seen above, Rugeland is completely silent on the encryption algorithm and/or integrity protection algorithm supported by the new gNB, let alone that the new gNB informs the old gNB the encryption algorithm and/or integrity protection algorithm supported by the new gNB in a case that the connection resume request is transmitted by a terminal device when initiating SDT.”
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Rugeland discloses that the new gNB sends the RRC connection resume request to the old gNB as a part of a Retrieve UE context request message. The RRC connection resume request is integrity protected using a security key (using PDCP integrity protection, Par 0098). When the new gNB sends this integrity protected RRC connection resume request to the old gNB, it clearly indicates that the new gNB supports the PDCP based integrity protection using the security key. The security key can be derived at the new gNB (Par 0099) and used to apply integrity protection to the RRC connection resume request (Par 0099). In addition, when the new gNB sends RRC message to the UE (step 6, Fig. 14), the RRC message is similarly integrity protected using PDCP protocol (Par 0100). Accordingly, the retrieve UE context request including integrity protected RRC connection resume request indicates the integrity protection algorithm (using PDCP protocol) supported by the new gNB. Security token/short-MAC-I included in the Retrieve UE Context Request message indicates support for integrity protection using security key.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3, 6, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rugeland et al (US 20200037210 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rugeland).
Re claim 1, Rugeland teaches a method for signaling transmission (Fig. 14-15, Abstract), comprising:
(i) receiving, by a first network device (new gNB), a connection resume request (RRC connection resume request), wherein the first network device is a target base station (new gNB is the target base station) (Fig. 14-15, Par 0095-0100, Par 0103-0105); and
(ii) transmitting, by the first network device (new gNB), first signaling (Retrieve UE Context Request including RRC connection resume request) to a second network device (Old gNB) in a case that the connection resume request is transmitted by a terminal device (UE) when initiating small data transmission (SDT) (UE needs to send small uplink data), wherein the second network device is a source base station (old gNB is a source base station), and the first signaling contains first indication information (causeValue) and first list information (integrity protection using security token/short-MAC-I included in the Retrieve UE Context Request message; integrity protected RRC connection resume request using PDCP integrity protection) (Fig. 14-15, Par 0095-0101, Par 0103-0105), and
(iii) wherein the first indication information indicates that initiation of the connection resume request by the terminal device is to perform SDT (causeValue= smallData), the first list information contains at least one of an encryption algorithm supported by the first network device and an integrity protection algorithm supported by the first network device (integrity protection using security token/short-MAC-I included in the Retrieve UE Context Request message; integrity protected RRC connection resume request using PDCP integrity protection), and the first signaling is used by the second network device to determine whether to perform user equipment (UE) context migration (old gNB determining whether to send the UE context based on the UE Context Retrieve Request message) (Fig. 13-15, Par 0090-0100, Par 0102-0105).
Claim 14 recites a first network device performing the steps recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Rugeland further teaches that the first network device comprises a transceiver (1710); a processor (1720) coupled with the transceiver; and a memory (1730) storing a computer program to be executed by the processor (Fig. 17, Par 0118-0121).
Re claims 3, 16, Rugeland teaches that the first indication information is carried in a radio resource control (RRC) resume cause information element (IE) (causeValue= smallData) (Fig. 14-15, Par 0095-0101, Par 0103-0105); or the first indication information is carried in a first IE.
Re claims 6, 19, Rugeland teaches to receive, by the first network device, a first message from the terminal device, wherein the first message contains the connection resume request (receiving RRC Connection Resume Request from the UE) (Fig. 14-15, Par 0095-0097, Par 0103-0105).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 4-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rugeland as applied to claim 1 and 14 above and further in view of Chen et al (US 20230189384 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chen).
Re claims 4, 17, Rugeland does not explicitly disclose that the first signaling further contains at least one of: a context identifier (ID) of the terminal device; or an ID of a cell corresponding to the first network device.
Chen teaches that the first signaling (UE Context request message) further contains at least one of: a context identifier (ID) of the terminal device (I-RNTI); or an ID of a cell corresponding to the first network device (Cell ID of the target base station) (Fig. 4, Par 0062-0063, Par 0066-0068, Par 0086-0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Rugeland by including the step that the first signaling further contains at least one of: a context identifier (ID) of the terminal device; or an ID of a cell corresponding to the first network device, as taught by Chen for the purpose of improving signaling transmission efficiency to reduce UE energy consumption, as taught by Chen (Par 0100).
Re claims 5, 18, Rugeland does not explicitly disclose that the connection resume request contains an inactive- radio network temporary identity I-RNTI); and the first network device determines the second network device according to the I-RNTI.
Chen teaches that the connection resume request contains an inactive- radio network temporary identity I-RNTI) (I-RNTI included in the RRC Resume message); and the first network device determines the second network device according to the I-RNTI (target base station identifies anchor base station based on the I-RNTI) (Par 0062-0063, Par 0066-0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Rugeland by including the step that the connection resume request contains an inactive- radio network temporary identity I-RNTI); and the first network device determines the second network device according to the I-RNTI, as taught by Chen for the purpose of improving signaling transmission efficiency to reduce UE energy consumption, as taught by Chen (Par 0100).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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.
/HARUN CHOWDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2473