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 Remarks
This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendments filed 04/14/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose “wherein the UE is in a Radio Resource Control INACTIVE state…and performing, by the UE that is still in the RRC INACTIVE state, a cell selection without first entering a Radio Resource Control (RRC) CONNECTED state” as amended into claims 1 and 4 (pages 4-6, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the limitation “receiving….a request to resume a suspended connection, wherein the UE is in a Radio Resource Control INACTIVE state,” Examiner notes Mildh at para. 0114 states that “a wireless device operative in a wireless communication network employing a RRC protocol, wherein the wireless device in RRC CONNECTED state receives from the network an RRC Suspend message including a security update parameter, and in response to the RRC Suspend message enters an RRC INACTIVE state and stores a first security context.” Which means that while the wireless device is suspended, it is in the RRC INACTIVE state. Therefore, in the context of para. 0161-0163, 0169 which Examiner cited to disclose “receiving….a request to resume a suspended connection” it is clear that the UE is in RRC INACTIVE state while it sets the contents of the RRCResumeRequest message, as the UE has already been suspended.
Regarding the limitation “and performing, by the UE that is still in the RRC INACTIVE state, a cell selection without first entering a Radio Resource Control (RRC) CONNECTED state,” Examiner notes Mildh at para. 0244 discloses that “in response to receiving an RRC Suspend message and entering an RRC INACTIVE state. The wireless device 20 may not transition to RRC CONNECTED state, for example, for any of the following events occurring: receiving from the network an RRC Reject message in response to the RRC Resume Request message; expiration of a timer started upon sending the RRC Resume Request message, without receiving a responsive message from the network; or performing a cell reselection prior to receiving a message from the network responsive to the RRC Resume Request message.” Therefore, it is clear that while the UE is suspended, it is in RRC INACTIVE, and does not enter RRC CONNECTED while performing cell reselection. Examiner notes that the “performing” limitation of claim 1 (and similarly claim 4) does not have to occur after the “receiving” limitation as it is not dependent upon any of the limitations in the “receiving” limitation. Therefore, this “performing” of “cell selection” may occur before “receiving…a RRCRelease.”
Priority
This application, which discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 16/489,434, filed June 27, 2019, appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a divisional application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: each instance of “the RRC INACTIVE” should be “the RRC INACTIVE state” therefor. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2019/0320316 A1 to Mildh et al. (“Mildh”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As to claim 1, see similar rejection to claim 4. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 4, Mildh discloses a User Equipment (UE) for communicating within a telecommunications network (fig. 11, element 10, UE), the wireless device comprising: a radio interface (fig. 11, element 16, communication interface); one or more processors (fig. 11, element 12, processor); and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, whereby the wireless device is operable to (para. 0243, the memory 14 is operative to store, and the processing circuitry 12 is operative to execute, software which when executed is operative to cause the UE 10 to): receive, by an Access Stratum (AS) layer of the UE and from an application layer or a Non Access Stratum (NAS) layer, of the UE, a request to resume a suspended connection, wherein the UE is in a Radio Resource Control INACTIVE state (para. 0161-0163, The UE shall set the contents of RRCResumeRequest message as follows: 1>set the resumeldentity to the stored I-RNTI value provided in suspend; 1>set the resumeCause (i.e. resume means there is a suspension; also: paras. 0162, 0169 “suspend,” “NCC in suspend and new key in RRC Resume Request”) in accordance with the information (i.e. request to resume) received from upper layers (i.e. NAS) or from AS layer (i.e. the use of “or” means it is possible the information [request to resume] may come from both the NAS and AS layers; additionally it is known in the art that in a wireless communication protocol stack, information is passed up/down the stack of layers); para. 0114 states that “a wireless device operative in a wireless communication network employing a RRC protocol, wherein the wireless device in RRC CONNECTED state receives from the network an RRC Suspend message including a security update parameter, and in response to the RRC Suspend message enters an RRC INACTIVE state and stores a first security context.” Which means that while the wireless device is suspended, it is in the RRC INACTIVE state); send, by the AS layer and to the telecommunications network, a RRCResumeRequest (para. 0178, 1>submit the RRCResumeRequest message to lower layers (i.e. AS) for transmission); receive, by the AS layer and from the telecommunications network, a RRCRelease with redirection information (para. 0148, UE receives…RRC Release Message…PDCP layer (i.e. AS)…new security context (i.e. redirection)); and perform, by the UE that is still in the RRC INACTIVE, a cell selection (para. 0179, 1>configure lower layers to resume integrity protection for all radio bearers except SRB0 (i.e. cell selection) using the previously configured algorithm and the temporary K.sub.RRCint key and temporary K.sub.UPint key immediately, i.e., integrity protection shall be applied to all subsequent messages received and sent by the UE; para. 0181, UE shall continue cell re-selection) without first entering a Radio Resource Control (RRC) CONNECTED state (para. 0244 discloses that “in response to receiving an RRC Suspend message and entering an RRC INACTIVE state. The wireless device 20 may not transition to RRC CONNECTED state, for example, for any of the following events occurring: receiving from the network an RRC Reject message in response to the RRC Resume Request message; expiration of a timer started upon sending the RRC Resume Request message, without receiving a responsive message from the network; or performing a cell reselection prior to receiving a message from the network responsive to the RRC Resume Request message).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights