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 Objections
Claim 20 has been amended. The objection to claim 20 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments, arguments, and remarks filed 2026-02-24 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered. A new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment(s) is made in view of the previously applied reference(s) as presented in this Office action. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 are therefore moot.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0159895 to Arzelier et al. (“Arzelier”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0187224 to Liu et al. (“Liu”).
As to claim 1 (and similarly applied to claims 10 and 20), Arzelier discloses a communication method (Fig. 3 and ¶0051), comprising: indicating, by a first device to a second device, that the first device is configured in a first mode (Fig. 3, step 312; ¶¶0052-53, UE 101 sends a trigger/request 312, which may be the UE requesting to transition from one mode to another, i.e., the trigger/request indicates that the UE is currently configured in a first mode; see also ¶¶0038-40 and ¶¶0075-84, in which UE sends a transition indication, i.e., request to transition from one state or mode to another), wherein a current protocol version of the first device is incompatible with a current protocol version of the second device (Fig. 3, step 312; ¶¶0052-53, the trigger/request from UE 101 may be, for example, in a new protocol that is not recognized by Network Element 110); receiving, by the first device, protocol information from the second device, wherein the protocol information is useable by the first device to update the current protocol version of the first device; and updating, by the first device, the current protocol version of the first device based on the protocol information (Fig. 3, step 314; ¶0052, "Response 314 may be an incompatibility message", i.e., the UE receives protocol information from the Network Element; and ¶0069, "the receipt of a response indicating incompatibility … results in the mobile device reverting to an older protocol for communication with the network element…"). Examiner notes that the UE 101 as disclosed by Arzelier is a communication apparatus, comprising a transceiver (Fig. 11 and ¶0219), which performs the above method. Thus, claim 20 is similarly rejected.
Arzelier does not disclose: wherein the protocol information indicates an upgrade package, a downgrade package, a protocol patch, a protocol stack installation package or an update package.
However, Liu discloses: wherein the protocol information indicates an upgrade package, a downgrade package, a protocol patch, a protocol stack installation package or an update package (Fig. 2, Step 201; ¶¶0075-0077; the base station sends protocol information to the mobile terminal which indicates the protocol version/release number, i.e., a package to be used to upgrade/downgrade/update/install the correct protocol for communication with the base station, which the mobile terminal does in Fig. 2, Steps 202-204 and ¶¶0078-0084).
Arzelier and Liu are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication networks and the transmission of digital information, including: affiliation to network or terminating affiliation with the network; network data management, including processing or transfer of terminal data; network arrangements, protocols or services independent of the application payload, including negotiation of communication capabilities; services specially adapted for wireless communication networks, including messaging, mailboxes, and/or announcements; and/or arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received, including automatic repetition steps and/or selective-repeat protocol. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arzelier to incorporate the teachings of Liu to include: wherein the protocol information indicates an upgrade package, a downgrade package, a protocol patch, a protocol stack installation package or an update package. Doing so would allow for "[solving] the problem in the prior art, that is, a compatibility problem occurs in the process of interconnection between a mobile terminal and a base station" [Liu, ¶0007], and/or would allow for "the base station [to decide] how to schedule the mobile terminal to avoid a compatibility problem" (Liu, ¶0088).
As to claim 2 (and similarly applied to claim 11), Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 1, wherein the indicating, by the first device to the second device, that the first device is configured in the first mode comprises: sending, by the first device, first indication information to the second device, wherein the first indication information is useable to indicate that the first device is configured in the first mode (Arzelier, Fig. 3, step 312; ¶¶0052-53, UE 101 sends a trigger/request 312, which may be the UE requesting to transition from one mode to another, i.e., the trigger/request indicates that the UE is currently configured in a first mode; see also ¶¶0038-40 and ¶¶0075-84, in which UE sends a transition indication, i.e., request to transition from one state or mode to another).
As to claim 3 (and similarly applied to claim 12), Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 1, wherein the indicating, by the first device to the second device, that the first device is configured in the first mode comprises: sending, by the first device, current chip information of the first device to the second device; or sending, by the first device, current protocol version information of the first device to the second device, wherein the current protocol version information of the first device is useable to indicate the current protocol version of the first device (Liu, Fig. 2, Step 206; ¶0087).
As to claim 8, Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 1, wherein the first device is a terminal device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, UE 101), and the second device is an access network device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, Network Element 110; ¶0036, the network element can be the UTRAN); the indicating, by the first device to the second device, that the first device is configured in the first mode comprises: sending, by the terminal device, a radio resource control (RRC) message to the access network device through an RRC connection, and indicating, based on the RRC message, that the terminal device is in the first mode (Arzelier, Fig. 3, step 312; ¶¶0052-53, UE 101 sends a trigger/request 312, which may be the UE requesting to transition from one mode to another, i.e., the trigger/request indicates that the UE is currently configured in a first mode; see also ¶¶0038-40 and ¶¶0075-77); and the receiving, by the first device, the protocol information from the second device comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, the protocol information from the access network device based on a data radio bearer (DRB) between the terminal device and the access network device (Arzelier, ¶0077, "'radio bearer' refers to radio resources assigned between the UE and the UTRAN").
As to claim 9, Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 1, wherein the first device is a terminal device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, UE 101), and the second device is an access network device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, Network Element 110; ¶0036, the network element can be the UTRAN); the indicating, by the first device to the second device, that the first device is configured in the first mode comprises: sending, by the terminal device, a radio resource control (RRC) setup request message to the access network device, and indicating, based on the RRC setup request message, that the terminal device is in the first mode (Arzelier, Fig. 3, step 312; ¶¶0052-53, UE 101 sends a trigger/request 312, which may be the UE requesting to transition from one mode to another, i.e., the trigger/request indicates that the UE is currently configured in a first mode; see also ¶¶0038-40 and ¶¶0075-77); and the receiving, by the first device, the protocol information from the second device comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, the protocol information from the access network device based on a data radio bearer (DRB) between the terminal device and the access network device (Arzelier, ¶0077, "'radio bearer' refers to radio resources assigned between the UE and the UTRAN").
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arzelier in view of Liu and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0038579 to Henttonen et al. (“Henttonen”).
As to claim 4, Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 1.
Arzelier in view of Liu does not disclose: wherein the communication method further comprises: starting, by the first device, a first timer at a first moment, and the first device skipping from repeatedly entering the first mode before the first timer expires, wherein a duration of the first timer is a first duration, and the first moment is a moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or a moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode; starting, by the first device, a second timer at a second moment, and before the second timer expires, the first device skipping from indicating to the second device that the first device is in the first mode, wherein a duration of the second timer is a second duration, and the second moment is the moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or the moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode; or starting, by the first device, a third timer at a third moment, and exiting, by the first device, the first mode after the third timer expires, wherein a duration of the third timer is a third duration, and the third moment is the moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or the moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode.
However, Henttonen discloses: wherein the communication method further comprises: starting, by the first device, a first timer at a first moment, and the first device skipping from repeatedly entering the first mode before the first timer expires, wherein a duration of the first timer is a first duration, and the first moment is a moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or a moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode; starting, by the first device, a second timer at a second moment, and before the second timer expires, the first device skipping from indicating to the second device that the first device is in the first mode, wherein a duration of the second timer is a second duration, and the second moment is the moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or the moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode (Fig. 1, steps 30 and 50; ¶0037); or starting, by the first device, a third timer at a third moment, and exiting, by the first device, the first mode after the third timer expires, wherein a duration of the third timer is a third duration, and the third moment is the moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or the moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode.
Arzelier, Liu, and Henttonen are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication networks and the transmission of digital information, including: affiliation to network or terminating affiliation with the network; network data management, including processing or transfer of terminal data; network arrangements, protocols or services independent of the application payload, including negotiation of communication capabilities; services specially adapted for wireless communication networks, including messaging, mailboxes, and/or announcements; and/or arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received, including automatic repetition steps and/or selective-repeat protocol. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arzelier in view of Liu to incorporate the teachings of Henttonen to include: wherein the communication method further comprises: starting, by the first device, a first timer at a first moment, and the first device skipping from repeatedly entering the first mode before the first timer expires, wherein a duration of the first timer is a first duration, and the first moment is a moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or a moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode; starting, by the first device, a second timer at a second moment, and before the second timer expires, the first device skipping from indicating to the second device that the first device is in the first mode, wherein a duration of the second timer is a second duration, and the second moment is the moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or the moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode; or starting, by the first device, a third timer at a third moment, and exiting, by the first device, the first mode after the third timer expires, wherein a duration of the third timer is a third duration, and the third moment is the moment at which the first device enters the first mode, or the moment at which the first device indicates, to the second device, that the first device is in the first mode. Doing so would prevent "excessive signaling of information from the UE to the network" (Henttonen, ¶0006) and would provide a means for "the network, i.e. a communication network control element such as an RNC or eNB [to be] able to control how frequently a UE is allowed to send communication mode preference indications so that the signaling load is controllable and reducible" (Henttonen, ¶0015); these improvements are desirable because they would provide at least the following benefits: increased reliability of the communication process; reduced signaling overhead; and reduced UE power consumption by reducing/preventing unnecessary transmission(s).
Claims 5-7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arzelier in view of Liu and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,753 to Zaus et al. (“Zaus”).
As to claim 5 (and similarly applied to claim 17), Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 1.
Arzelier in view of Liu does not disclose: wherein the communication method further comprises: determining, by the first device from the second device, a service that is supported by the first device in the first mode.
However, Zaus discloses: wherein the communication method further comprises: determining, by the first device from the second device, a service that is supported by the first device in the first mode (Fig. 15, step 1506; Col. 14: lines 34-38).
Arzelier, Liu, and Zaus are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication networks and the transmission of digital information, including: affiliation to network or terminating affiliation with the network; network data management, including processing or transfer of terminal data; network arrangements, protocols or services independent of the application payload, including negotiation of communication capabilities; services specially adapted for wireless communication networks, including messaging, mailboxes, and/or announcements; and/or arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received, including automatic repetition steps and/or selective-repeat protocol. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arzelier in view of Liu to incorporate the teachings of Zaus to include: wherein the communication method further comprises: determining, by the first device from the second device, a service that is supported by the first device in the first mode. Doing so would ensure that the network would inform the UE correctly whether it can receive specific services via the network, which would allow a network to dynamically serve multiple UEs with a variety of capabilities/service requirements. Zaus provides a specific example of this benefit: "embodiments of the present disclosure help provide a UE that does not support VoNR, but supports voice via EPS fallback, and the network will inform the UE correctly whether it can get IMS voice services via this 5G network. In some embodiments, especially for the first generations of 5G modems, embodiments of the present disclosure may provide a system where a modem does not need to support all features (like VoNR)" (Zaus, Col. 8, lines 33-40).
As to claim 6 (and similarly applied to claim 18), Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 1, wherein the first device is a terminal device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, UE 101), and the second device is a core network device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, Network Element 110; ¶0036, the network element can be the core network).
Arzelier in view of Liu does not disclose: the indicating, by the first device to the second device, that the first device is configured in the first mode comprises: sending, by the terminal device, a registration request message to the core network device, and indicating, based on the registration request message, that the terminal device is in the first mode.
However, Zaus discloses: the indicating, by the first device to the second device, that the first device is configured in the first mode comprises: sending, by the terminal device, a registration request message to the core network device, and indicating, based on the registration request message, that the terminal device is in the first mode (Fig. 2, step 1; Col. 8: lines 47-60).
Arzelier, Liu, and Zaus are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication networks and the transmission of digital information, including: affiliation to network or terminating affiliation with the network; network data management, including processing or transfer of terminal data; network arrangements, protocols or services independent of the application payload, including negotiation of communication capabilities; services specially adapted for wireless communication networks, including messaging, mailboxes, and/or announcements; and/or arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received, including automatic repetition steps and/or selective-repeat protocol. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arzelier in view of Liu to incorporate the teachings of Zaus to include: the indicating, by the first device to the second device, that the first device is configured in the first mode comprises: sending, by the terminal device, a registration request message to the core network device, and indicating, based on the registration request message, that the terminal device is in the first mode. Doing so would ensure that the network would inform the UE correctly whether it can receive specific services via the network, which would allow a network to dynamically serve multiple UEs with a variety of capabilities/service requirements. Zaus provides a specific example of this benefit: "embodiments of the present disclosure help provide a UE that does not support VoNR, but supports voice via EPS fallback, and the network will inform the UE correctly whether it can get IMS voice services via this 5G network. In some embodiments, especially for the first generations of 5G modems, embodiments of the present disclosure may provide a system where a modem does not need to support all features (like VoNR)" (Zaus, Col. 8, lines 33-40).
As to claim 7 (and similarly applied to claim 19), Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 1, wherein the first device is a terminal device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, UE 101), and the second device is a core network device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, Network Element 110; ¶0036, the network element can be the core network).
Arzelier in view of Liu does not disclose: the receiving, by the first device, the protocol information from the second device comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a registration accept message from the core network device or a registration reject message from the core network device, wherein the registration accept message or the registration reject message comprises the protocol information; or receiving, by the terminal device, the protocol information from the core network device based on a data radio bearer (DRB) between the terminal device and an access network device.
However, Zaus discloses: the receiving, by the first device, the protocol information from the second device comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a registration accept message from the core network device or a registration reject message from the core network device, wherein the registration accept message or the registration reject message comprises the protocol information (Fig. 2, step 21; Col. 9, lines 5-17); or receiving, by the terminal device, the protocol information from the core network device based on a data radio bearer (DRB) between the terminal device and an access network device.
Arzelier, Liu, and Zaus are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication networks and the transmission of digital information, including: affiliation to network or terminating affiliation with the network; network data management, including processing or transfer of terminal data; network arrangements, protocols or services independent of the application payload, including negotiation of communication capabilities; services specially adapted for wireless communication networks, including messaging, mailboxes, and/or announcements; and/or arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received, including automatic repetition steps and/or selective-repeat protocol. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arzelier in view of Liu to incorporate the teachings of Zaus to include: the receiving, by the first device, the protocol information from the second device comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a registration accept message from the core network device or a registration reject message from the core network device, wherein the registration accept message or the registration reject message comprises the protocol information; or receiving, by the terminal device, the protocol information from the core network device based on a data radio bearer (DRB) between the terminal device and an access network device. Doing so would ensure that the network would inform the UE correctly whether it can receive specific services via the network, which would allow a network to dynamically serve multiple UEs with a variety of capabilities/service requirements. Zaus provides a specific example of this benefit: "embodiments of the present disclosure help provide a UE that does not support VoNR, but supports voice via EPS fallback, and the network will inform the UE correctly whether it can get IMS voice services via this 5G network. In some embodiments, especially for the first generations of 5G modems, embodiments of the present disclosure may provide a system where a modem does not need to support all features (like VoNR)" (Zaus, Col. 8, lines 33-40).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arzelier in view Liu and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0191456 to Jain.
As to claim 13, Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 10.
Arzelier in view of Liu does not disclose: wherein the communication method further comprises: determining, by the second device based on the current protocol version of the second device, a protocol version required by the first device; and obtaining, by the second device, the protocol information based on the protocol version required by the first device.
However, Jain discloses: wherein the communication method further comprises: determining, by the second device based on the current protocol version of the second device, a protocol version required by the first device; and obtaining, by the second device, the protocol information based on the protocol version required by the first device (Fig. 5, steps 508-514; ¶¶0050-52).
Arzelier, Liu, and Jain are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication networks and the transmission of digital information, including: affiliation to network or terminating affiliation with the network; network data management, including processing or transfer of terminal data; network arrangements, protocols or services independent of the application payload, including negotiation of communication capabilities; services specially adapted for wireless communication networks, including messaging, mailboxes, and/or announcements; and/or arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received, including automatic repetition steps and/or selective-repeat protocol. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arzelier in view of Liu to incorporate the teachings of Jain to include: wherein the communication method further comprises: determining, by the second device based on the current protocol version of the second device, a protocol version required by the first device; and obtaining, by the second device, the protocol information based on the protocol version required by the first device. Doing so would provide a way for "[a] client device to gain knowledge of the data communication protocols and communication modes currently supported by [a] server device, along with other configuration and compatibility information of the server device, if needed" (Jain, ¶0019) which would solve the problem of "the client device may waste time trying to establish a data communication session with the server device using an obsolete or no longer supported data communication protocol. In a worst case scenario, it may be impossible for the client device to establish a working data communication link with an updated, modified, or revised server device" (Jain, ¶0003).
As to claim 14, Arzelier in view of Liu and further in view of Jain discloses the communication method according to claim 13, wherein in response to the second device receiving the current version information of the first device from the first device, the determining, by the second device based on the current protocol version of the second device, protocol version information required by the first device comprises: determining, by the second device, the current protocol version of the second device as the protocol version required by the first device in response to a protocol version indicated by the current version information of the first device being different from the current protocol version of the second device (Arzelier, Fig. 3, step 314; ¶0052, "Response 314 may be an incompatibility message", i.e. the second device determines that the communication protocols used by the first and second devices are incompatible).
As to claim 15, Arzelier in view of Liu and further in view of Jain discloses the communication method according to claim 13, wherein the obtaining, by the second device, the protocol information based on the protocol version required by the first device comprises: sending, by the second device, a request message to a third device, wherein the request message is useable to request the protocol information from the third device; and receiving, by the second device, the protocol information from the third device (Jain, Fig. 5, steps 508-514; ¶¶0050-52).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arzelier in view of Liu and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,013,346 to Tucker.
As to claim 16, Arzelier in view of Liu discloses the communication method according to claim 10, wherein the communication method further comprises: … the fourth moment is a moment at which the second device determines that the first device is in the first mode (Arzelier, Fig. 3, step 312; ¶¶0052-53, UE 101 sends a trigger/request 312, which may be the UE requesting to transition from one mode to another, i.e., the trigger/request indicates that the UE is currently configured in a first mode; see also ¶¶0038-40 and ¶¶0075-84, in which UE sends a transition indication, i.e., request to transition from one state or mode to another).
Arzelier in view of Liu does not disclose: starting a fourth timer at a fourth moment, and before the fourth counter expires, the second device skipping from sending the protocol information to the first device after determining, from the first device, that the first device is in the first mode, wherein a duration of the fourth timer is a fourth duration.
However, Tucker discloses: starting a fourth timer at a fourth moment, and before the fourth counter expires, the second device skipping from sending the protocol information to the first device after determining, from the first device, that the first device is in the first mode (Fig. 3, steps 34-38; Col. 3: line 64 through Col. 4: line 5, packet retransmission occurs only after the first timer expires), wherein a duration of the fourth timer is a fourth duration (Col. 3: lines 55-58).
Arzelier, Liu, and Tucker are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication networks and the transmission of digital information, including: affiliation to network or terminating affiliation with the network; network data management, including processing or transfer of terminal data; network arrangements, protocols or services independent of the application payload, including negotiation of communication capabilities; services specially adapted for wireless communication networks, including messaging, mailboxes, and/or announcements; and/or arrangements for detecting or preventing errors in the information received, including automatic repetition steps and/or selective-repeat protocol. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arzelier in view of Liu to incorporate the teachings of Tucker to include: starting a fourth timer at a fourth moment, and before the fourth counter expires, the second device skipping from sending the protocol information to the first device after determining, from the first device, that the first device is in the first mode, wherein a duration of the fourth timer is a fourth duration. Such retransmission timers are well known in the art(s) of wireless communication and/or transmission of digital information, and one would be motivated to use such a timer in order to prevent data from being lost or retransmitted unnecessarily, thus improving reliability of the communication process, reducing signaling overhead, and reducing power consumption.
References Cited
Arzelier, Claude Jean-Frede et al. (2011). Method and system for allowing varied functionality based on multiple transmissions (US 2011/0159895 A1). Filed 2009-12-30.
Henttonen, Tero Heikki Matti et al. (2014). Controlling communication mode setting (US 2014/0038579 A1). Filed 2013-08-06.
Jain, Vikal Kumar (2011). Systems and methods for coordinating data communication between two devices (US 2011/0191456 A1). Filed 2010-02-03.
Liu, Tao et al. (2014). Protocol version negotiation method, mobile terminal, base station and communications system (US 2014/0187224 A1). Filed 2013-10-29.
Tucker, Rusty (2006). Connectionless protocol (US 7,013,346 B1). Filed 2000-10-06.
Zaus, R. et al. (2025). Method, computer readable medium and apparatus to determine support of ims voice service in a 5g mobile network (US 12,192,753 B2). Filed 2020-03-06.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Baker, Albert D. et al. (2002). Automatic protocol version detection and call processing reconfiguration in a communication system (US 2002/0172220 A1). Filed 2001-03-07.
Earnshaw, Mark et al. (2003). Method and apparatus for transmitting data over a network within a specified time limit (US 2003/0012212 A1). Filed 2001-03-14.
Fromentoux, Gael et al. (2020). Method for recommending a communication stack (US 2020/0099766 A1). Filed 2018-03-22.
Gupta, Vivek et al. (2022). Methods and systems for data transfer over non-access stratum (nas) control plane for cellular internet of things (ciot) in a 5g system (5gs) (US 2022/0132455 A1). Filed 2020-01-27.
Martinez, Vincent Pierre et al. (2020). Wireless vehicular communications with dynamic-based relationships (US 2020/0162587 A1). Filed 2019-10-31.
Mills, David R. et al. (2020). Device registration via authentication transference (US 10,764,267 B2). Filed 2018-07-24.
Okuyama, Taro et al. (2018). Information system (US 2018/0241841 A1). Filed 2018-04-20.
Pasanen, Juha et al. (2004). Solution for managing user equipment version information in a mobile communications network (US 2004/0147242 A1). Filed 2003-06-17.
Raju et al. (2007). Wireless communication gateway for session initiation protocol enterprise system (US 2007/0281682 A1). Filed 2007-05-30, 2007-05-30.
Rönneke, Hans Bertil et al. (2017). System, method, and apparatus for facilitating selection of a serving node (US 2017/0048695 A1). Filed 2015-08-14.
Shan, Changhong (2024). Solution for 5gc to notify v2x ue whether v2x service is supported or authorized (US 11,889,391 B2). Filed 2020-02-04.
Swain, Santosh Kumar et al. (2022). Combined authentication and connection establishment for a communication channel (US 2022/0109663 A1). Filed 2020-10-02.
Vialen, Jukka et al. (2001). Method and arrangement for optimizing the re-establishment of connections in a cellular radio system supporting real time and non-real time communications (US 2001/0018342 A1). Filed 2001-02-22.
Xing, Jinqiang (2023). Capability reporting method for terminal, terminal configuration method, terminal device, and network device (US 2023/0224691 A1). Filed 2022-12-27.
Xiong, Youjun et al. (2019). Method, apparatus and terminal device for communication protocol compatibility (US 2019/0199834 A1). Filed 2018-02-08.
Yasukawa, Kenta et al. (2015). System, method and computer program product for protocol adaptation (US 2015/0149651 A1). Filed 2012-05-10.
Yuan, Jun et al. (2021). Local area network architecture for supporting multiple ip services (US 10,965,722 B1). Filed 2019-09-30.
Zaus, Robert et al. (2015). Method for the transfer of radio capability information (US 2015/0264637 A1). Filed 2014-12-24.
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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 7am – 4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights