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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-19-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Tenny was not relied to show an I-RNTI, please Tseng par. 0043.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Tseng does not include par. 0043 in the provisional application, the examiner’s position is that the provisional application has support for identifier I-RNTI in the background in the first page: Agreement in RAN2#99bis: 4. Thereby, Tseng has support and qualify as prior art. Please note that the rejection of record only relies on Tseng to disclose an I-RNTI and substituting one identifier by another does not change the principle of operation, all identifiers bring the same predictable result, they identify.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant’s arguments are based on a different combination than the one suggested in the rejection of record. The rejection of record only relies on Tseng to disclose an I-RNTI and substituting one identifier by another is within the knowledge of one of the ordinary skills in the art, since all identifiers bring the same predictable result, they identify.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. Please see below the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 31-32, 37-38, 43-46, 48-49, 54-55, 60-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanny 20180234839 in view of Chhabra 9532311 and further in view of Tseng 20190150221.
As to claims 31-32, Tenny discloses a method of wireless communication of a serving base station [Serving Node 120, 122, 207] and wherein the apparatus further includes at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (see fig.22a,b and 23), comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE) [115-119, 205] in radio resource control (RRC) inactive mode (see abstract, par. 0047, 0056), a first uplink data packet [219] including: a first identifier identifying an anchor base station (see par. 0050-0051, 0058), a second identifier identifying a UE context (additional information, a Resume ID or Short Resume ID, etc. or vice versa) (eC-RNTI), C-RNTI tC-RNTI (see par. 0007, 0058, 0062), and a payload (see par. 0058); receiving an indication that the UE supports inactive data transfer, wherein the indication is received prior to the [next] inactive data transfer (see par. 0047, 0059-0060); identifying the anchor base station [105, 209] using at least in part on one or more of the first identifier or the second identifier (see par. 0058); and transmitting [forwarding] a second packet to the anchor base station, wherein the second packet includes at least a portion of the first packet (see par. 0058-0060). In the explanation in par. 0058, Tenny discloses uplink data without the word packet; however, it would be obvious that the uplink data of par. 0058 is the same as the one indicated in par. 0050 which recites uplink data packet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that uplink data is referring to uplink data packets because it may be advantageous to route the uplink data packets to the anchor node as suggested by Tanny in par. 0051-0055. Tenny fails to disclose an indication bit. In an analogous art, Chhabra discloses receiving, from the UE, an indication bit included in a first packet, the indication bit indicating that the UE supports a power save mode, wherein the indication is received prior to the inactive data transfer [inactive data transfer] (see col. 8, lines 42-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of saving power while allowing communications. The previous references fail to discloses an (I-RNTI). In an analogous art, Tseng discloses wherein the identifier includes an inactive radio network temporary identifier (I-RNTI) (see par. 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to use I-RNTI or any desired protocol for the simple purpose to identify the UE context for RRC_INACTIVE UE and compatibility with existing standards.
As to claim 37, Tenny discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first packet includes an RLC configuration (see par. 0170).
As to claim 38, Tenny discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the RLC configuration is preconfigured at the UE (see par. 0157).
As to claim 43, Tenny discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second packet includes the first identifier and the payload (see par. 0058).
As to claim 44, Tenny discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second packet includes: the first identifier, the second identifier, and the payload (see par. 0058).
As to claim 45, Tenny discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the second packet further includes a third identifier [associated with the network enity], (for examinations purposes the third identifier is equivalent to the first identifier) (see par. 0058, 0060).
As to claim 46, Tenny discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a third packet [829] from the anchor base station [809], the third packet including: the first identifier, the second identifier, a downlink payload, and a third identifier associated with the serving base station; and transmitting the third packet to the UE [831] (see par. 0129).
Regarding claims 48-49, 54-55, 60-63 they are the corresponding apparatus claims of method claims 31, 37-38 and 43-46. Therefore, claims 48, 54-55 and 60-63 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Claims 33-34, 39-42, 47, 50-51, 56-59 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenny in view of Chhabra and Tseng, further in view of Li 20150163695.
As to claims 33-34 and 50-51, Tenny discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the first packet includes an RRC message, wherein the RRC message includes the second identifier (see par. 0131). Tenny fails to disclose a service data unit (SDU). In an analogous art, Li discloses the first packet includes a first service data unit (SDU), and a second SDU, the first subheader includes the first identifier, and the second SDU includes the payload (see par. 0110, 0131), wherein: the first packet further includes a second subheader, and the second subheader includes a third identifier (see par. 0131). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards.
As to claims 39 and 56, Tenny discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the first packet includes a header, a PDU, and a control element (CE) and wherein the subheader includes the first identifier, the PDU includes the payload, and the CE includes the second identifier (see par. 0058, 0165-0166). Tenny fails to disclose a subheader, a service data unit (SDU). In an analogous art, Li discloses the first packet includes a subheader, a service data unit (SDU), and a control element (CE) and wherein the subheader includes the first identifier the SDU includes the payload, and the CE includes the second identifier (see par. 0110, 0131). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards.
As to claims 40 and 57, Tenny discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the first packet comprises a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) and the CE is a MAC CE (see fig. 13, par. 0165-0166) or wherein the first packet comprises a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) and the CE is a PDCP CE (see par. 0240-0241).
As to claims 41-42 and 58-59, Tenny discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the first packet includes an RRC message, and the RRC message includes: the first identifier, the second identifier, and the payload (see par. 0131). Tenny fails to disclose a subheader, a service data unit (SDU). In an analogous art, Li discloses wherein: the first packet includes a service data unit (SDU) including an RRC message, and the RRC message in the SDU includes: the first identifier, the second identifier, and the payload (see par. 0110, 0131), wherein: the first packet further comprises a subheader, and the subheader includes a third identifier associated with the serving base station (see par. 0131). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards.
As to claims 47 and 64, Tenny discloses wherein the indication bit is included in a medium access control (MAC) of the first packet (see fig. 13, par. 0165-0166); wherein the indication indicates that the UE supports the inactive data transfer between the UE and the anchor base station (see par. 0047, 0059-0060), and wherein transmission of the second packet to the anchor base station is based in part on the indication indicating that the UE supports the inactive data transfer (see par. 0058-0060). Tenny fails to disclose a subheader. In an analogous art, Li discloses wherein: the first packet further comprises a subheader (see par. 0131). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards.
Claims 35 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenny in view of Chhabra and Tseng further in view of Li and further in view of Joo 20090092138.
As to claim 35 and 52, the previous references fails to disclose wherein the first SDU and the second SDU are multiplexed. In another analogous art, Joo discloses wherein the first SDU and the second SDU are multiplexed (see par. 0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of maximize resources and compatibility with existing standards.
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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached on (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647