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 on Jun. 23, 2026 with respect to group I claims 1 – 10 and 18 – 20, along with group II claims 11 – 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant respectfully submits that the examiner’s allegations clearly fail short of establishing a proper restriction requirement. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is improper.
The examiner’s response, “Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1 – 10 and 19 - 20 are drawn to A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, where the UE performs - receive, from a radio access network (RAN) node, a configuration associated with a radio resource control (RRC) released state; receive an indication of a validity time associated with the configuration; operate, in the RRC released state, in accordance with the configuration for a duration of the validity time; and perform an action associated with the configuration after an expiry of the validity time, the action including at least one of: transmit a communication associated with resuming an RRC connection with the RAN node, or refrain from performing one or more forwarding operations (Fig. 6 and corresponding description in the specification – paragraphs 0006, 0090 - 0103).
II Claims 11 - 17 are drawn to a repeater for wireless communication, where the repeater performs - receive a side control configuration from a radio access network (RAN) node; receive an indication of a validity time associated with the side control configuration; and forward signaling to or from the RAN node associated with the side control configuration for a duration of the validity time (Fig. 7 and corresponding description in the specification – paragraphs 0007 - 0014, 0120 - 0137).
Inventions I and II are directed to related different inventions (as shown above). The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect;
Here, a UE of group I and a repeater of group II are performing different steps – e.g., the UE receive, from a radio access network RAN node, a configuration associated with a radio resource control RRC released state; receive an indication of validity time; operate in the RRC released state for a duration of the validity time; and perform an action after an expiry of validity time.
At the same time, a repeater receive a side control configuration from a radio RAN node; receive an indication of a validity time associated with the side control configuration; and forward to or from the RAN node associated with the side control configuration for a duration of the validity time.
(2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed I and II are claiming different inventions.
Here, a UE of group I and a repeater of group II are receiving different messages and are performing different steps.
The restrictions for Group I and Group II is maintained”.
Applications election with traverse, Invention I that includes claims 1 – 10 and 18 – 20 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
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 1 – 6, 9, 10, 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
De Silva US PGPub: US 2023/007623 A1 Jan. 5, 2023 and in view of
Lovlekar US PGPub: US 2022/0072175 A1 Mar. 10, 2022.
Regarding claims 1, 18, De Silva discloses,
a user equipment UE (UE – Figs. 12 – 15) for wireless communication and a method for wireless communication performed by a user equipment UE, comprising: (release, suspend and reconfiguration in paging – ABSTRACT, Figs. 12/UE – 15/UE, paragraphs 0231 - 0234), comprising:
one or more memories (wireless device 1910 includes antenna 1911, interface 1914, processing circuitry 1920, device readable medium 1930, user interface equipment 1932, auxiliary equipment 1934, power source 1936 and power circuitry 1937 – Fig. 19, paragraph 0692. The apparatus may be implemented in a wireless device or network node - e.g., wireless device 1910 or network node 1960 – Fig. 29, paragraph 0735. Network node 1960 includes processing circuitry 1970, device readable medium 1980, interface 1990, auxiliary equipment 1984, power source 1986, power circuitry 1987, and antenna 1962 – Fig. 19, paragraph 0683); and
one or more processors (wireless device 1910 includes antenna 1911, interface 1914, processing circuitry 1920, device readable medium 1930, user interface equipment 1932, auxiliary equipment 1934, power source 1936 and power circuitry 1937 – Fig. 19, paragraph 0692. The apparatus may be implemented in a wireless device or network node - e.g., wireless device 1910 or network node 1960 – Fig. 29, paragraph 0735. Network node 1960 includes processing circuitry 1970, device readable medium 1980, interface 1990, auxiliary equipment 1984, power source 1986, power circuitry 1987, and antenna 1962 – Fig. 19, paragraph 0683), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a radio access network RAN node, a configuration associated with a radio resource control RRC released state (the network sends a paging message with an RRC Release like message, with a suspend configuration – Figs. 12/1201, 13/1301, 14/1401, paragraphs 0282, 0287, 0292. The UE has received the RRCRelease message – paragraph 0405);
receive an indication of a validity time associated with the configuration (if the RRCRelease message is including the waittime; start timer 302 with the value set to the wait time – paragraphs 0201, 0202, 0527, 0528. The UE restores at least parts of its UE AS Inactive content, for example its suspend configuration – Figs. 12/1202, 13/1302, 14/1402, paragraphs 0283, 0288, 0293. If the RRCRelease message is including the waitTime, start timer 302 with the value set to the wait time – paragraphs 0412, 0413);
operate, in the RRC released state, in accordance with the configuration for a duration of the validity time (the UE applies RRCRelease – Figs. 12/1203, 13/1303, 14/1403, paragraphs 0283, 0288, 0293. The UE performs actions upon receiving RRCRelease in paging – Figs. 12/1204, 13/1304, 14/1404, paragraphs 0283, 0288, 0293, 0417); and
but, does not disclose, perform an action associated with the configuration after an expiry of the validity time, the action including at least one of: transmit a communication associated with resuming an RRC connection with the RAN node,
Lovlekar teaches, the suspension timer expires and UE Stack 1 enters an RRC Idle state at 730 prior to completion of the high priority activity over UE Stack 2 at 732. Accordingly, at 734, UE Stack 1 may resume its connection with NW 1 at 734 by setting up a new RRC Connection. At 738, UE Stack 1 transmits an RRC Connection Resume Request to NW 1, reads on the claimed feature, perform an action associated with the configuration after an expiry of the validity time, the action including at least one of: transmit a communication associated with resuming an RRC connection with the RAN node (Figs. 7/Timer = X expires, 7/724 through 7/738, 10/1050, paragraphs 0114, 0115, 0133).
UE Stack 1 receives the RRC Connection Reconfiguration message and in response enters RRC Connected mode (paragraph 0112). NW 1 responds to UE Stack 1 with an RRC Connection Setup message. Here the UE had received RRC Connection Suspend with suspend_timer_duration =X (Fig. 7/740, and after the timer had expired received RRC Connection Step 740 (Fig. 7/740, paragraph 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the release, suspend and reconfiguration in paging of De Silva (De Silva, ABSTRACT, Figs. 12 – 15, paragraphs 0231 – 0234) wherein the system of De Silva, would have incorporated improved suspend/resume operation of user equipment of Lovlekar (Lovlekar, Figs. 7/Timer = X expires, 7/724 through 7/738, 10/1050, paragraphs 0114, 0115, 0133) for improvements in wireless communications, and in particular with respect to multiple subscriber identity functionality (Lovlekar, paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 2, De Silva discloses,
the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
receive an indication to release the RRC connection with the RAN node (the network sends a paging message with an RRC Release like message, with a suspend configuration – Figs. 12/1201, 13/1301, 14/1401, paragraphs 0282, 0287, 0292. The UE has received the RRCRelease message – paragraph 0405), wherein the indication of the validity time specifies a time for which the configuration is valid following the release of the RRC connection (if the RRCRelease message is including the waittime; start timer 302 with the value set to the wait time – paragraphs 0201, 0202, 0527, 0528, 0412, 0413).
Regarding claim 3, De Silva discloses,
the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the configuration and to receive the validity time, are configured to cause the UE to:
receive the configuration and the indication of the validity time in a single message from the RAN node (the network sends a paging message with an RRC Release like message, with a suspend configuration – Figs. 12/1201, 13/1301, 14/1401, paragraphs 0282, 0287, 0292. The UE has received the RRCRelease message – paragraph 0405. If the RRCRelease message is including the waittime; start timer 302 with the value set to the wait time – paragraphs 0201, 0202, 0527, 0528, 0412, 0413).
Regarding claim 4, De Silva discloses,
the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the configuration and to receive the validity time, are configured to cause the UE to:
receive one or more of the validity time (if the RRCRelease message is including the waittime; start timer 302 with the value set to the wait time – paragraphs 0201, 0202, 0527, 0528, 0412, 0413) or the configuration in an RRC release message (the network sends a paging message with an RRC Release like message, with a suspend configuration – Figs. 12/1201, 13/1301, 14/1401, paragraphs 0282, 0287, 0292).
Regarding claims 5,, 19 De Silva discloses,
the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to cause the UE to:
receive an update to the configuration (the network may want to update the UE Access Stratum AS Inactive context of a UE in INACTIVE state for different reasons, or if the network want to change the RNA configuration due to some re-configuration at the network side, addition of new nodes/cells, etc., – paragraph 0222. The network responds with an RRC Resume like message 1005 – paragraph 0226. Once the UE enters Connected state, the network could update the RRC configuration parts of the UE AS Inactive context i.e. the configurations the UE has been using when it was in Connected state, done by the RRC Resume like message or even a subsequent RRC Reconfiguration – paragraph 0227),
but, does not disclose, receive an update to the configuration “after the expiry of the validity time”.
Lovlekar teaches, the suspension timer expires and UE Stack 1 enters an RRC Idle state at 730 prior to completion of the high priority activity over UE Stack 2 at 732. Accordingly, at 734, UE Stack 1 may resume its connection with NW 1 at 734 by setting up a new RRC Connection. At 738, UE Stack 1 transmits an RRC Connection Resume Request to NW 1 (Figs. 7/Timer = X expires, 7/724 through 7/738, 10/1050, paragraphs 0114, 0115, 0133).
UE Stack 1 receives the RRC Connection Reconfiguration message and in response enters RRC Connected mode (paragraph 0112). NW 1 responds to UE Stack 1 with an RRC Connection Setup message. Here the UE had received RRC Connection Suspend with suspend_timer_duration =X (Fig. 7/740, and after the timer had expired received RRC Connection Step 740 (Fig. 7/740, paragraph 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the release, suspend and reconfiguration in paging of De Silva (De Silva, ABSTRACT, Figs. 12 – 15, paragraphs 0231 – 0234) wherein the system of De Silva, would have incorporated improved suspend/resume operation of user equipment of Lovlekar (Lovlekar, Figs. 7/Timer = X expires, 7/724 through 7/738, 10/1050, paragraphs 0114, 0115, 0133) for improvements in wireless communications, and in particular with respect to multiple subscriber identity functionality (Lovlekar, paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 6, De Silva discloses,
the UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to cause the UE to:
resume the RRC connection with the RAN node to receive the update to the configuration (once the UE enters Connected state, the network could update the RRC configuration parts of the UE AS Inactive context i.e. the configurations the UE has been using when it was in Connected state, done by the RRC Resume like message or even a subsequent RRC Reconfiguration – paragraph 0227).
Regarding claims 9, 20, De Silva discloses,
the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to cause the UE to:
perform a random access channel RACH procedure with the RAN node (Upon receiving a paging message, addressed in one of its PO (with a P-RNTI on PDCCH) and identified by an I-RNTI in the paging message, an Inactive UE initiates a resume procedure by transmitting a random-access preamble (which in the best case is the first available RACH occasion associated to the selected beam e.g. SSB resource – paragraph 0224. The UE receives an indication of a RACH resource and/or Dedicated Random Access Preamble to be used for that purpose in the paging message or in the RRC Release or RRC Reconfiguration like messages transmitted with the paging. That RACH resource may be a preamble and/or a time/frequency – paragraph 0448), and
receive an update to the configuration via the RACH procedure (the network may want to update the UE Access Stratum AS Inactive context of a UE in INACTIVE state for different reasons, or if the network want to change the RNA configuration due to some re-configuration at the network side, addition of new nodes/cells, etc., – paragraph 0222. The network responds with an RRC Resume like message 1005 – paragraph 0226. Once the UE enters Connected state, the network could update the RRC configuration parts of the UE AS Inactive context i.e. the configurations the UE has been using when it was in Connected state, done by the RRC Resume like message or even a subsequent RRC Reconfiguration – paragraph 0227. The UE will then perform a Random Access procedure using the specific RACH resource and/or received Preamble – paragraph 0448),
but, does not disclose, perform a random access channel RACH procedure with the RAN node “after the expiry of the validity time”.
Lovlekar teaches, the suspension timer expires and UE Stack 1 enters an RRC Idle state at 730 prior to completion of the high priority activity over UE Stack 2 at 732. Accordingly, at 734, UE Stack 1 may resume its connection with NW 1 at 734 by setting up a new RRC Connection. At 738, UE Stack 1 transmits an RRC Connection Resume Request to NW 1 (Figs. 7/Timer = X expires, 7/724 through 7/738, 10/1050, paragraphs 0114, 0115, 0133).
UE Stack 1 receives the RRC Connection Reconfiguration message and in response enters RRC Connected mode (paragraph 0112). NW 1 responds to UE Stack 1 with an RRC Connection Setup message. Here the UE had received RRC Connection Suspend with suspend_timer_duration =X (Fig. 7/740, and after the timer had expired received RRC Connection Step 740 (Fig. 7/740, paragraph 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the release, suspend and reconfiguration in paging of De Silva (De Silva, ABSTRACT, Figs. 12 – 15, paragraphs 0231 – 0234) wherein the system of De Silva, would have incorporated improved suspend/resume operation of user equipment of Lovlekar (Lovlekar, Figs. 7/Timer = X expires, 7/724 through 7/738, 10/1050, paragraphs 0114, 0115, 0133) for improvements in wireless communications, and in particular with respect to multiple subscriber identity functionality (Lovlekar, paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 10, De Silva discloses,
the UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to cause the UE to: transmit a RACH message using dedicated RACH resources indicated in an RRC release message (the UE sends a message that acts as an acknowledgement for the RRCRelease – Figs. 12/1206, 13/1306, 14/1406, 17/RRCReconfigurationComplete, 18/RRC connection re-establishment, paragraphs 0284, 0289, 0294).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
De Silva US PGPub: US 2023/007623 A1 Jan. 5, 2023 and in view of
Lovlekar US PGPub: US 2022/0072175 A1 Mar. 10, 2022 and further in view of
Shih US PGPub: US 2022/0159617 A1 May 19, 2022.
Regarding claim 8, both De Silva and Lovlekar discloses all the claimed features,
but, does not disclose, the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive an indication of an extension of the validity time associated with
Shih teaches, the BS may configure one or more additional PO locations in the time domain by configuring an extended PO - e.g., a paging window and/or configuring multiple POs to a UE (paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the release, suspend and reconfiguration in paging of combined De Silva and Lovlekar (combined De Silva and Lovlekar, ABSTRACT, Figs. 12 – 15, paragraphs 0231 – 0234) wherein the system of combined De Silva and Lovlekar would have incorporated, the BS may configure one or more additional PO locations in the time domain by configuring an extended PO - e.g., a paging window and/or configuring multiple POs to a UE of Shih (Shih, paragraph 0048) for paging enhancement in the wireless communication systems (Shih, paragraph 0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kim US PGPub: US 2021/0105788 A1 Apr. 8, 2021.
Kim teaches, demand system information for sidelink communiations. The base station may send the sidelink SIB via a physical message, a MAC message or an RRC response message, where the RRC response message may be an RRC setup message, an RRC resume message, or an RRC release message.
A UE in RRC inactive state may send an RRC resume request message with a resume identity. Based on receiving the RRC resume request message, a base station may identify the UE with the resume identity and check the UE inactive context.
Agiwal US PGPub: US 2023/0144750 A1 May 11, 2023.
Transmitting and receiving paging and dedicated system information in wireless communication system.
Chin US PGPub: US 2022/0377800 A1 Nov. 24, 2022.
A user equipment (UE) and a method for small data transmission (SDT) are provided. The method includes initiating an SDT procedure while the UE is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Inactive (RRC_INACTIVE) state; initiating a random access (RA) procedure before the SDT procedure is terminated; and determining whether to include a Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) in an uplink (UL) message during the RA procedure based on at least one condition. The at least one condition includes whether the SDT procedure corresponds to a Configured Grant (CG)-SDT procedure. The UL message is a message 3 (Msg3) in a case that the RA procedure is a 4-step RA procedure. The UL message is a message A (MsgA) in a case that the RA procedure is a 2-step RA procedure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 6:30 AM - 3:30 PM EST.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/NIMESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights