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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendments filed 07/20/2026.
The previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
The previous objection to claim 4 is maintained as there is an instance of just “the RRC INACTIVE” without “state” mentioned.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20190349838 A1.
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
Claim 4 is are objected to because of the following informalities: “the RRC INACTIVE” should be “the RRC INACTIVE state” therefor. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0320316 A1 to Mildh et al. (“Mildh”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0349838 A1 to FUTAKI et al. (“Futaki”)
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. 103 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); 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 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. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
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 (RRC) 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).
Mildh does not expressly disclose and in response to the RRCRelease with redirection information being received, perform, by the UE that is still in the RRC INACTIVE, a cell selection without first entering an RRC CONNECTED state.
Futaki discloses at para. 0079: After receiving the RRC message including the notification or the signal indicating the notification, the gNB 1 may move the UE 2 (i.e., may cause the UE 2 to transition) to the RRC_CONNECTED state, or may keep the UE 2 in the RRC_INACTIVE state (i.e. perform, by the UE that is still in the RRC INACTIVE… without first entering an RRC CONNECTED state). In some implementations, the gNB 1 may move the UE 2 to an appropriate cell when the network slice requested by the UE 2 is not available in the gNB 1 or the cell thereof. Specifically, the gNB 1 may move the UE 2 to another cell in which the network slice requested by the UE 2 is available (or supported). The other cell to which UE 2 is to be moved may be another cell served by the same gNB 1 as the cell (i.e., the cell reselected by the UE 2) in which the gNB 1 has received the notification about the desired network slice from the UE 2. Alternatively, the other cell to which the UE 2 is to be moved may be a cell of another gNB 1. The gNB 1 may use a handover procedure or a redirection procedure (e.g., RRC connection release with redirection) to move the UE 2 to the appropriate cell (i.e. in response to the RRCRelease with redirection information being received, perform, by the UE that is still in the RRC INACTIVE, a cell selection).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RRCRelease with redirection as taught by Futaki into the invention of Mildh. The suggestion/motivation would have been to move a UE to an appropriate cell (Futaki, para. 0079). Including the RRCRelease with redirection as taught by Futaki into the invention of Mildh was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Futaki.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130028097 A1 discloses at para. 0047: if the terminal simply releases the RRC connection, NAS connection and EPS bearer because it has been inactive for too long, or the terminal 101 may de-attach from the network and switch to EMM_unregistered (for example following a handover to a GSM network).
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