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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 2/8/2024 and 9/12/2024 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 2/7/2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rayavarapu et al. (US-2013/0039339 hereinafter, Rayavarapu).
Regarding claim 1, Rayavarapu teaches a wireless terminal (Fig. 1 [101]) that communicates with a first access node (Fig. 1 [102a]), the wireless terminal comprising:
receiving circuitry (Fig. 2 [204]) configured to receive, from the first access node, a message (Fig. 8 [C]) comprising:
an instruction to enter an inactive state (Fig. 8 [C] and Page 13 [0319]), and
context transfer status indicating that a security context of the wireless terminal is transferred to at least one target access node; (Page 19 [0387] “the eNB 102a,b . . . n that initially suspends the UE's RRC Connection to set the area based validity criteria in a way to ensure that the UE 101 only attempts to reactivate a suspended RRC Connection on a cell/eNB 102a,b . . . n that is known to support the functionality”) and
processor circuitry (Fig. 2 [202]) configured to:
transition, based on the instruction, to the inactive state; (Fig. 8 [D] and Page 12 [0292] “in accordance with the present disclosure a UE 101 in a temporarily-inactive connected mode (i.e. having a `suspended` RRC connection) performs UE-controlled mobility (UE autonomous cell selection/reselection) and DRX procedures as if it were in idle mode, and during this time the RRC connection for this UE may be considered to be "suspended" (as opposed to released).”)
store the security context (Page 13 [0320] “The UE 101 and eNB 102a suspend the RRC connection. The Uu connection is effectively `deactivated` such that no user plane data is transferred between the eNB 102a and UE 101 but RRC connection information is stored by both the UE 101 and the eNB 102a” and Page 10 [0268] “The stored (suspended) RRC connection information may comprise, for example, one or more of: parameters relating to the current configuration of radio bearers, radio resources, temporary cell identifiers, security parameters or keys, MAC configuration, physical layer configuration and measurement and reporting configuration”), and
upon camping on a cell served by a second access node, determine, based on the context transfer status, whether the security context is transferred to the cell. (Page 14 [0329] “if location-based validity criteria are used, then the UE 101 can be aware when the UE 101 selects/reselects a cell in which its suspended RRC Connection is not valid (e.g. a cell where the suspended RRC context may not be reactivated or re-established)” and Page 28 [0575] “On its current camped cell within the validity area, UE sends an RRC connection reestablishment request with a new cause indicating reactivate` or new IE to indicate the reactivation of a suspended RRC Connection or context.”)
Regarding claim 2, Rayavarapu teaches wherein in a case that the stored security context is transferred to the cell, the wireless terminal initiates an access attempt on the cell. (Fig. 17 [4] and Fig. 28 [3])
Regarding claim 3, Rayavarapu teaches wherein in a case that the stored security context is not transferred to the cell, the wireless terminal refrains from initiating an access attempt on the cell. (Fig. 18 [3 & 4] & Page 18 [0384] “In this case, the UE 101 determines that its suspended RRC Connection is not valid for the cell on which it is located (3) (for example, this may be the case if the UE 101 is on a cell that does not lie within a specified validity area, or in the event that a validity timer has expired). The UE 101 releases its suspended RRC Connection and enters the RRC idle state (4)”)
Regarding claim 4, Rayavarapu teaches wherein the context transfer status includes an identity of the at least one target access node. (Page 11 [0281] “The set of cells on which the RRC context is deemed `valid` is termed a validity area. Within the validity area, the UE or network may initiate or attempt reactivation or re-establishment procedures for a previously-suspended RRC connection” and Page 25 [0516] “These other validity areas may be explicitly configured by eNB or other network entities, either prior to or at the time of RRC connection suspension, additional signalling may also be required to inform the UEs of the parameters concerning a validity area (for example, a group of Cell global identities)”)
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 5 are directed to a device that is not the structure of the “wireless terminal”. Accordingly, the “wherein” statement is directed to “at least one target access node” that is outside the scope of the structure of the “wireless terminal”.
Regarding claim 6, Rayavarapu teaches wherein the security context comprises security keys. (Page 10 [0268] “The stored (suspended) RRC connection information may comprise, for example, one or more of: parameters relating to the current configuration of radio bearers, radio resources, temporary cell identifiers, security parameters or keys, MAC configuration, physical layer configuration and measurement and reporting configuration”)
Regarding claim 7, Rayavarapu teaches wherein the message is a release message used to release a connection to the first access node. (Page 30 [0629] “ A "Suspend Command" message may be defined for downlink communications in order to allow the network to command a suspension of the UEs present RRC connection. In order to provide this functionality, an existing message (such as RRC release, or RRC reconfiguration) may be modified”)
Regarding claim 8, Rayavarapu teaches an access node (Fig. 8 [102a]) that communicates with a wireless terminal (Fig. 8 [101]), the access terminal comprising:
processor circuitry (Page 12 [0302] “The methods and other modes of operation described herein of the UE 101, eNB 102a,b . . . n, SGW 103a, MME 103b and other CN nodes within the scope of the present disclosure may be provided at least in part by one or more processors within the UE 101, eNB 102a,b . . . n, SGW 103a, MME 103b and other CN nodes executing machine readable instructions to configure them to function accordingly to carry out said method”) configured to generate a message comprising:
an instruction to enter an inactive state (Fig. 8 [C] and Page 13 [0319]), and
context transfer status indicating that a security context of the wireless terminal is transferred to at least one target access nodes; (Page 19 [0387] “the eNB 102a,b . . . n that initially suspends the UE's RRC Connection to set the area based validity criteria in a way to ensure that the UE 101 only attempts to reactivate a suspended RRC Connection on a cell/eNB 102a,b . . . n that is known to support the functionality”) and
transmitter circuitry configured to transmit the message to the wireless terminal; (Page 5 [0133 & 0144] “transmission of a message by the RAN node to the mobile device to instruct release of the established RRC connection” and “The RAN node or nodes may be eNode B(s)”)
wherein the context transfer status is configured to be used by the wireless terminal to determine, upon camping on a cell, whether the security context is transferred to the cell. (Page 14 [0329] “if location-based validity criteria are used, then the UE 101 can be aware when the UE 101 selects/reselects a cell in which its suspended RRC Connection is not valid (e.g. a cell where the suspended RRC context may not be reactivated or re-established)” and Page 28 [0575] “On its current camped cell within the validity area, UE sends an RRC connection reestablishment request with a new cause indicating reactivate` or new IE to indicate the reactivation of a suspended RRC Connection or context.”)
Regarding claim 9, Rayavarapu teaches wherein the context transfer status further includes an identity of the at least one target access node. (Page 11 [0281] “The set of cells on which the RRC context is deemed `valid` is termed a validity area. Within the validity area, the UE or network may initiate or attempt reactivation or re-establishment procedures for a previously-suspended RRC connection” and Page 25 [0516] “These other validity areas may be explicitly configured by eNB or other network entities, either prior to or at the time of RRC connection suspension, additional signalling may also be required to inform the UEs of the parameters concerning a validity area (for example, a group of Cell global identities)”)
Regarding claim 11, Rayavarapu teaches wherein the security context comprises security keys. (Page 10 [0268] “The stored (suspended) RRC connection information may comprise, for example, one or more of: parameters relating to the current configuration of radio bearers, radio resources, temporary cell identifiers, security parameters or keys, MAC configuration, physical layer configuration and measurement and reporting configuration”)
Regarding claim 12, Rayavarapu teaches wherein the message is a release message used to release a connection to the first access node. (Page 30 [0629] “ A "Suspend Command" message may be defined for downlink communications in order to allow the network to command a suspension of the UEs present RRC connection. In order to provide this functionality, an existing message (such as RRC release, or RRC reconfiguration) may be modified”)
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayavarapu in view of Jain et al. (US-2025/0106804 hereinafter, Jain).
Specific note to the claim 5 rejection below, this rejection is provided in view of compact prosecution assuming the eventual correction of claim 1 to a system including the structure of both the wireless terminal and the access node.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Rayavarapu teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the at least one access node is on a satellite connected wirelessly to a core network via a feeder link, and wherein the satellite is configured to provide a store and forward (S&F) service by storing and forwarding user data while the feeder link is unavailable.
In an analogous art, Jain teaches a registration for a UE (Fig. 1 [102]) to a satellite (Fig. 1 [108]) with store and forward mode (Abstract) that includes an access node (Fig. 1 [108]) connected wirelessly to a core network (Fig. 1 [104]) via a feeder link (Fig. 1 [Feeder Link]), and wherein the satellite is configured to provide a store and forward (S&F) service by storing and forwarding user data while the feeder link is unavailable. (Fig. 9 [S2])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Rayavarapu after modifying it to incorporate the ability to have an access node be a satellite with a store and forward service of Jain since it improves upon the current standard by enabling the managing of attach/registration for a UE when the satellite is in store and forward mode. (Jain Page 1 [0005 & 0010] and Page 5 [0075] “the UE (102) will be unable to access satellite network services in S&F Mode if it has not previously registered with the satellite network. The proposed solution allows the ground MME (second network apparatus (204) to pick a satellite that will reach the present location first, resulting in faster response delivery to the UE (102) and completion of the attach/registration operation”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2013/0039287 to Rayavarapu et al. which discloses suspending and re-establishing RRC connections
US-2026/0040388 to Parichehrehteroujeni et al. which discloses storing inactive security contexts in an anchor gNB & UE and providing that information to a target gNB for faster resumption of an RRC session.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights