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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8, 12, 16 and 20 are 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.
Regarding claims 8, 12, 16 and 20 the claims recite the RRC connected state comprises an RRC inactive state. This is impossible, as the RRC connected state is a discrete and mutually exclusive state from the RRC inactive state. To advance prosecution, it is considered that this stanza intended to state “the non radio resource control RRC connected state comprises an RRC inactive state”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xiao, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0080933; note also foreign priority document CN 114727426 (“426”) and attached translation with all citations to translation)
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 17, Xiao discloses a method performed by an apparatus in a non-radio resource control (RRC) connected state (paragraph 0045 – UE is in RRC inactive when T380 is running after RRC connection release; see also page 8 of 426), the method comprising, an apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor (paragraph 0082) while the apparatus is in a non-resource control (RRC) connected state (paragraph 0045 – UE is in RRC inactive when T380 is running after RRC connection release; see also page 8 of 426), cause the apparatus to and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor (paragraph 0082) while an apparatus is in non-radio resource control (RRC) connected state (paragraph 0045 – UE is in RRC inactive when T380 is running after RRC connection release; see also page 8 of 426), causes the apparatus to
in response to a first preset condition being met, performing a first RRC connection resume procedure for a radio access network-based notification area update (RNAU), wherein the first preset condition comprises determining that a first timer does not run and a second timer expires; or (The system of Xiao discloses that when a first condition is met comprising second time expires [i.e. expiration of the T380 timer] while the first timer does not run [i.e. the small data transfer/SDT timer is not running, indicating that a SDT is not ongoing] the UE may commence a first RRC resume procedure to connect to the network to perform the periodic RAN-based Notification Area Update [paragraph 0045 – second timer is T380 which periodically wakes the UE for RANU updates; paragraph 0005 – RANU update is performed using a RRC resume procedure/first RRC resume procedure; paragraph 0064 – RANU update/first RRC connection resume procedure is not performed if the first/SDT timer is running – “ In other words, if an RNAU occurs or T380 expires when the SDT timer is running or the UE is performing an SDT procedure, the UE does not perform the RRC resume procedure.”] [see also pages 8, 4 and 11 of 426, respectively].
the first preset condition comprises determining that the apparatus receives a system information block 1 (SIB1) of a first serving cell, the first serving cell does not belong to a configured radio access network-based notification area (RNA), and he first timer does not run; and (This element is not treated as it is conditional based on the or)
the first timer is started in response to the apparatus initiating a second RRC connection resume procedure for small data transmission (SDT), and the second timer is started in response to the apparatus receiving a RRC release message comprising a duration of the second timer (Xiao further discloses that the SDT procedure initiates a second RRC connection [paragraph 0004 – SDT procedure, which also activates the SDT timer/first timer per paragraph 0064, is carried out via a second RRC connection resume; see also page 4 of 426] and that the second timer starts based on an RRC release that has one field T380 that indicates the value/duration of the T380 timer [paragraph 0045; see also page 8 of 426].)
Regarding claims 12, 16 and 20, Xiao discloses the non RRC connected state is an RRC inactive state (Xiao discloses the non-RRC connected state is RRC inactive (paragraph 0007).
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 (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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0080933; note also foreign priority document CN 114727426 (“426”) and attached translation with all citations to translation) in view of R2-2103971 (“971”) (Author Unknown, Report of [Post113-e][503][SDT] T319, cell reselection and re-establishment, Doc. No. R2-2103971, pages 1-20, 20 April 2021), TS 38.331 (“331”) (Author Unknown, TS 38.331 V16.3.1, pages 1-1021, January 2021) and Tseng, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication 2024/0015689)
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 18 Xiao fails to disclose in response to determining a RRC reject message is received, stopping the first timer. In the same field of endeavor, R2-2103971 (“971”) discloses in response to determining the first timer runs and a RRC reject message is received, stopping the first timer. (971 discloses that the SDT timer/first timer for an SDT transfer is halted during the SDT procedure based on all legacy conditions for RRC resume including reception of a RRC reject message [pages 2-3, “Proposal 3”]. )
Therefore since 971 discloses stopping the first timer/SDT timer when a RRC reject is received in accordance with legacy RRC resume procedures, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first/SDT timer stopping on RRC reject of 971 with the system of Xiao by stopping the first SDT timer when a RRC reject is received. The motive to combine is to end a timer associated with the SDT procedure when the procedure ends via RRC reject to reduce overhead of tracking unnecessary timers.
Xiao as modified by 971 fails to explicitly disclose determining the first timer runs. In the same field of endeavor, 331 discloses determining the first timer runs. (pages 122-123, section 5.13.15.2- when RRC reject is received by the UE the UE stops timer 319, if running).
Therefore, since 331 discloses checking if timer 319 is running before stopping it and Xiao as modified by 971 discloses that legacy RRC resume timer procedures, like those of 331, should also apply to the first timer/SDT transmissions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the running check of 331 with the system of Xiao as modified by 971 by checking if the first/SDT timer is running before stopping it. The motive to combine is to reduce unneeded operations such a stopping an already stopped timer.
Xiao as modified by 971 and 331 fails to disclose in response to determining the second timer does not run, setting a first variable to a first value, wherein the first value indicates there is a pending RNA update procedure. In the same field of endeavor, Tseng discloses in response to determining the second timer does not run, setting a first variable to a first value, wherein the first value indicates there is a pending RNA update procedure.
That is, Xiao as modified by 971 and 331, in particular Xiao, discloses the RNA update/RANU procedure is triggered by expiration of the second timer (see discussion, supra). Xiao further discloses that a determination of if a timer runs or not may be used to determine the status of a particular procedure based on the linking of a timer to a particular state/status of the procedure (see independent claim, supra, the running status of the first timer is used to determine if the SDT procedure is active or ended).
Tseng discloses that the RANU procedure may be triggered based on expiration of the second timer/T380 [paragraph 0082] and the triggered RANU procedure may be blocked by the UAC and remain pending [paragraph 0061]. After the blocking by the UAC, the second timer/T380 is now not running as it has expired and has not been re-initialized [see paragraph 0099, mechanisms 1d/1e]. Following the blocking, the UE may trigger an SDT procedure at which time it is checked if there is a pending RANU procedure and based on this check, the RANU procedure is then suspended [paragraph 0061] the suspension of the RANU procedure may be accomplished by setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true [paragraphs 0083-0086].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the checking for a blocked RANU procedure upon SDT triggering and subsequent suspension of the RANU procedure by setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true of Tseng with the system of Xiao by checking for a blocked RANU procedure upon SDT triggering and subsequent suspension of the RANU procedure by setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true, as taught by Tseng while further using the timer based procedure status checking of Xiao to check to see if the second timer is running to assess of the RANU procedure has been blocked by the UAC by assessing the procedure as blocked when the timer is not running. The motive to combine is to allow the RANU procedure to be suspended while a higher priority SDT procedure occurs to improve service by allowing a high priority procedure to occur first.
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0080933; note also foreign priority document CN 114727426 (“426”) and attached translation with all citations to translation) in view of R2-2103971 (“971”) (Author Unknown, Report of [Post113-e][503][SDT] T319, cell reselection and re-establishment, Doc. No. R2-2103971, pages 1-20, 20 April 2021), TS 38.331 (“331”) (Author Unknown, TS 38.331 V16.3.1, pages 1-1021, January 2021) and Tseng, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication 2024/0015689).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Xiao fails to disclose in response to determining a RRC reject message is received, stopping the first timer. In the same field of endeavor, R2-2103971 (“971”) discloses in response to determining the first timer runs and a RRC reject message is received, stopping the first timer. (971 discloses that the SDT timer/first timer for an SDT transfer is halted during the SDT procedure based on all legacy conditions for RRC resume including reception of a RRC reject message [pages 2-3, “Proposal 3”]. )
Therefore since 971 discloses stopping the first timer/SDT timer when a RRC reject is received in accordance with legacy RRC resume procedures, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first/SDT timer stopping on RRC reject of 971 with the system of Xiao by stopping the first SDT timer when a RRC reject is received. The motive to combine is to end a timer associated with the SDT procedure when the procedure ends via RRC reject to reduce overhead of tracking unnecessary timers.
Xiao as modified by 971 fails to explicitly disclose determining the first timer runs. In the same field of endeavor, 331 discloses determining the first timer runs. (pages 122-123, section 5.13.15.2- when RRC reject is received by the UE the UE stops timer 319, if running).
Therefore, since 331 discloses checking if timer 319 is running before stopping it and Xiao as modified by 971 discloses that legacy RRC resume timer procedures, like those of 331, should also apply to the first timer/SDT transmissions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the running check of 331 with the system of Xiao as modified by 971 by checking if the first/SDT timer is running before stopping it. The motive to combine is to reduce unneeded operations such a stopping an already stopped timer.
Xiao as modified by 971 and 331 fails to disclose in response to determining the first timer expires and the second timer does not run, performing the first RRC connection resume procedure. In the same field of endeavor, Tseng discloses in response to determining the first timer expires and the second timer does not run, performing the first RRC connection resume procedure.
That is, Xiao discloses a determination of if a timer runs or not may be used to determine the status of a particular procedure based on the linking of a timer to a particular state/status of the procedure (see independent claim, supra, the running status of the first timer is used to determine if the SDT procedure is active or ended).
Tseng discloses that a paused RANU procedure suspended for SDT transmission may be resumed after the SDT transmission has failed by setting PendingRNA-Update to true and sending the RRC resume request [paragraph 0061, paragraph 114. table 6, element 3e]. Regarding the pausing of the RANI procedure, the RANU procedure may be triggered based on expiration of the second timer/T380 [paragraph 0082; note also 696, pages 4-5 – T380 expiration triggers RANU] and the triggered RANU procedure may be blocked by the UAC and remain pending [paragraph 0061]. After the blocking by the UAC, the second timer/T380 is now not running as it has expired and has not been re-initialized [see paragraph 0099, mechanisms 1d/1e]. Following the blocking, the UE may trigger an SDT procedure at which time it is checked if there is a pending RANU procedure and based on this check, the RANU procedure is then suspended [paragraph 0061] the suspension of the RANU procedure may be accomplished by setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true [paragraphs 0083-0086].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the RANU resumption upon SDT failure of Tseng with the system of Xiao as modified by 917 by checking for a filed SDT transfer based on the expired first/SDT timer and further checking to see if there is a paused RANU procedure, and, if so, setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true and initiating a RRC resume connection for the suspended RANU procedure, wherein the timer based procedure status checking of Xiao to check to see if the second timer not running as an indication that the RANU procedure is suspended. The motive to combine is to improve resilience of the RANU updates by performing the updates if the SDT fails.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0080933; note also foreign priority document CN 114727426 (“426”) and attached translation with all citations to translation) in view of R2-2103971 (“971”) (Author Unknown, Report of [Post113-e][503][SDT] T319, cell reselection and re-establishment, Doc. No. R2-2103971, pages 1-20, 20 April 2021) and Tseng, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication 2024/0015689)
Regarding claim 5, Xiao fails to disclose determining the first timer expires. In the same field of endeavor, 971 discloses determining the first timer expires. (971 dislcoses that the system tracks when the SDT/first timer expires and declares the SDT failed when it expires [page 1, last paragaprh].)
Therefore, since 917 dislcoses SDT timer tracking, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the tracking of 917 with the system of Xiao by tracking when the first timer expires and using that to indicate a failed SDT transfer. The motive to combine is to improve performance of failed transfers by placing a time limit on the transfer before failure.
Xiao as modified by 917 fails to disclose in response to determining the first timer expires and the second timer does not run, setting a first variable to a first value, wherein the first value indicates that there is a pending RNA update procedure. In the same field of endeavor, Tseng discloses in response to determining the first timer expires and the second timer does not run, setting a first variable to a first value, wherein the first value indicates that there is a pending RNA update procedure.
That is, Xiao discloses a determination of if a timer runs or not may be used to determine the status of a particular procedure based on the linking of a timer to a particular state/status of the procedure (see independent claim, supra, the running status of the first timer is used to determine if the SDT procedure is active or ended).
Tseng discloses that a paused RANU procedure suspended for SDT transmission may be resumed after the SDT transmission has failed by setting PendingRNA-Update to true and sending the RRC resume request [paragraph 0061, paragraph 114. table 6, element 3e]. Regarding the pausing of the RANI procedure, the RANU procedure may be triggered based on expiration of the second timer/T380 [paragraph 0082; note also 696, pages 4-5 – T380 expiration triggers RANU] and the triggered RANU procedure may be blocked by the UAC and remain pending [paragraph 0061]. After the blocking by the UAC, the second timer/T380 is now not running as it has expired and has not been re-initialized [see paragraph 0099, mechanisms 1d/1e]. Following the blocking, the UE may trigger an SDT procedure at which time it is checked if there is a pending RANU procedure and based on this check, the RANU procedure is then suspended [paragraph 0061] the suspension of the RANU procedure may be accomplished by setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true [paragraphs 0083-0086].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the RANU resumption upon SDT failure of Tseng with the system of Xiao as modified by 917 by checking for a filed SDT transfer based on the expired first/SDT timer and further checking to see if there is a paused RANU procedure, and, if so, setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true and initiating a RRC resume connection for the suspended RANU procedure, wherein the timer based procedure status checking of Xiao to check to see if the second timer not running as an indication that the RANU procedure is suspended. The motive to combine is to improve resilience of the RANU updates by performing the updates if the SDT fails.
Regarding claim 6, Xiao fails to disclose determining the first timer expires. In the same field of endeavor, 971 discloses determining the first timer expires. (971 discloses that the system tracks when the SDT/first timer expires and declares the SDT failed when it expires [page 1, last paragraph].)
Therefore, since 917 discloses SDT timer tracking, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the tracking of 917 with the system of Xiao by tracking when the first timer expires and using that to indicate a failed SDT transfer. The motive to combine is to improve performance of failed transfers by placing a time limit on the transfer before failure.
Xiao as modified by 917 fails to disclose in response to determining the first timer expires and the second timer does not run, performing the first RRC connection resume procedure. In the same field of endeavor, Tseng discloses in response to determining the first timer expires and the second timer does not run, performing the first RRC connection resume procedure.
That is, Xiao discloses a determination of if a timer runs or not may be used to determine the status of a particular procedure based on the linking of a timer to a particular state/status of the procedure (see independent claim, supra, the running status of the first timer is used to determine if the SDT procedure is active or ended).
Tseng discloses that a paused RANU procedure suspended for SDT transmission may be resumed after the SDT transmission has failed by setting PendingRNA-Update to true and sending the RRC resume request [paragraph 0061, paragraph 114. table 6, element 3e]. Regarding the pausing of the RANI procedure, the RANU procedure may be triggered based on expiration of the second timer/T380 [paragraph 0082; note also 696, pages 4-5 – T380 expiration triggers RANU] and the triggered RANU procedure may be blocked by the UAC and remain pending [paragraph 0061]. After the blocking by the UAC, the second timer/T380 is now not running as it has expired and has not been re-initialized [see paragraph 0099, mechanisms 1d/1e]. Following the blocking, the UE may trigger an SDT procedure at which time it is checked if there is a pending RANU procedure and based on this check, the RANU procedure is then suspended [paragraph 0061] the suspension of the RANU procedure may be accomplished by setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true [paragraphs 0083-0086].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the RANU resumption upon SDT failure of Tseng with the system of Xiao as modified by 917 by checking for a filed SDT transfer based on the expired first/SDT timer and further checking to see if there is a paused RANU procedure, and, if so, setting the VarPendingRNA-Update variable to true and initiating a RRC resume connection for the suspended RANU procedure, wherein the timer based procedure status checking of Xiao to check to see if the second timer not running as an indication that the RANU procedure is suspended. The motive to combine is to improve resilience of the RANU updates by performing the updates if the SDT fails.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0080933; note also foreign priority document CN 114727426 (“426”) and attached translation with all citations to translation) in view of R2-2103971 (“971”) (Author Unknown, Report of [Post113-e][503][SDT] T319, cell reselection and re-establishment, Doc. No. R2-2103971, pages 1-20, 20 April 2021)
Regarding claim 8, Xiao discloses the non RRC connected state is an RRC inactive state and after failure of the SDT, the UE is still in the RRC inactive state. (Xiao discloses the non-RRC connected state is RRC inactive (paragraph 0007).
Xiao fails to disclose after the first timer expires, the apparatus is in the RRC inactive state. In the same field of endeavor, 971 discloses after the first timer expires, the apparatus is in the RRC inactive state. (971 discloses that the system tracks when the SDT/first timer expires and declares the SDT failed when it expires [page 1, last paragraph].)
Therefore, since 917 discloses SDT timer tracking, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the tracking of 917 with the system of Xiao by tracking when the first timer expires and using that to indicate the SDT transfer of Xiao has failed at which point the UE will still be in the inactive state as a SDT transfer is done in the inactive state and no RRC resume for entry into connected state has been executed. The motive to combine is to improve performance of failed transfers by placing a time limit on the transfer before failure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7 and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose in response to determining the first timer expires and the second timer does not run, starting a third timer and in response to determining the third timer expires and the first timer does not run, performing the first RRC connection resume procedure. That is, as is discussed with respect to the rejection of, for example, claim 3, it is known that in response to determining the first timer runs and a RRC reject message is received, stopping the first timer and in response to determining the second timer does not run, performing the first RRC connection resume procedure. However, a great number of combinations are required to reject these limitations in similar claim 3, including the combination of Xiao, R2-2103971, TS 38.331 and Tseng. Furthermore, no other art teaching directly the use of a third timer to delay the first RRC connection resume procedure as claimed could be located. Finally because of the number and type of combinations already made, the use of generic art related to delay timers and delaying a RRC resume was deemed to be too speculative to apply to the system of Xiao as modified by R2-2103971, TS 38.331 and Tseng. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the case is similar with that of claim 4, as claim 6, which is the closest analogous claim to that of claim 7 without the third timer, likewise requires a significant number of combinations to rejection requiring Xiao as modified by R2-2103971, and Tseng to formulate the rejection. Therefore the reasons for allowance are the same as those presented with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose in response to determining the first timer runs and a cell reselection occurs, occurs on the apparatus, stopping the first timer; receiving a SIB1 of a second serving cell, wherein the second serving cell is obtained through the cell reselection that occurs on the apparatus; and in response to determining the SIB1 of the second serving cell is received, determining the second serving cell belongs to the configured RNA, and determining the second timer does not run, setting a first variable to a first value, wherein the first value indicates there is a pending RNA update procedure. That is, it is known to stop the first timer upon cell reselection (see 971, page 3, “6: Cell reselection”). Furthermore, the closest other prior art of Mildh, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2020/0120477) discloses performing RANU upon cell handover only if the new cell is not a part of the configured RNA (paragraphs 0158-0163). However, additional reference will be required to show the SIB1 based RNA determination and further Mildh is silent as to a determination that the second/periodic RANU timer does not run as it is triggered by timer expiry or the use of the variable indicating a pending RNA update procedure. Therefore, looking at the number and type of combinations required and no art teaching the second/periodic RANU timer does not run, it was deemed beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose in response to determining the first timer runs and a cell reselection occurs on the apparatus, stopping the first time; receiving a SIB1 of a second serving cell, wherein the second serving cell is obtained through the cell reselection that occurs on the apparatus; and in response to determining the SIB1 of the second serving cell is received, determining the second serving cell belongs to the configured RNA, and determining the second timer does not run, performing the first RRC connection resume procedure. That is, it is known to stop the first timer upon cell reselection (see 971, page 3, “6: Cell reselection”). Furthermore, the closest other prior art of Mildh, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2020/0120477) discloses performing RANU upon cell handover only if the new cell is not a part of the configured RNA (paragraphs 0158-0163). However, additional reference will be required to show the SIB1 based RNA determination and further Mildh is silent as to a determination that the second/periodic RANU timer does not run as it is triggered by timer expiry. Therefore, looking at the number and type of combinations required and no art teaching the second/periodic RANU timer does not run, it was deemed beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose after the first variable is set to the first value, the apparatus is further caused to: in response to determining access barring is alleviated, determining an upper layer is not requesting an RRC layer to perform the second RRC connection resume procedure, and determining the first variable is the first value, perform the first RRC connection resume procedure. That is, considering the number and type of combinations already made to reject parent claim 14, which requires the combination of Xiao, 971, 331 and Tseng to meet the required limitations, the application of additional art related to significant technical feature such as those claimed in claim 15 was deemed beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention. Furthermore, even if this was not the case, no art teaching the limitations of claim 15 could be located. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
R2-2107293 (Author Unknown, Control Plane leftover issues on SDT mechanism, Doc. No. R2-2107293, pages 1-10, 27 August 2021) – disclosing SDT configuration and detailed timers
Barbu, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0073841) – by same applicant and disclosing similar RNAU.
Rao, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0365277) – disclosing SDT timers
Kucera, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0196360) – by same applicant and disclosing similar RNAU.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466