DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13-14, 32, 33, 35, 36, 44, 54, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, and 135 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Sillanpaa et al. (US20200053818A1), hereinafter “Sillanpaa,” in view of Kim et al. (US2019/0357295 A1), hereinafter “Kim.”
Regarding Claim 1, Sillanpaa teaches A method of wireless communication,
comprising providing, from a non-access stratum (NAS) layer to an access stratum (AS) layer associated with a user equipment (UE) while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, a NAS message to be transmitted to a mobility management entity via a base station; Sillanpaa discloses that while the UE is in the RRC Inactive state, the NAS layer generates a Registration message and provides it to the RRC (AS) layer for inclusion in an RRCResumeRequest (Sillanpaa [0064]–[0065], [0083], Fig. 3). This RRCResumeRequest, which includes the NAS message as “DedicatedNASInfo,” is transmitted via the AS layer to the base station and ultimately forwarded to the AMF (core network) for processing (Sillanpaa [0064]).
providing, from the NAS layer, a request to resume an RRC connection; Sillanpaa describes that the NAS message itself (e.g., a Registration Request) initiates the resume procedure. The inclusion of the NAS message in the RRCResumeRequest functions as a request to resume the RRC connection (Sillanpaa [0065], Fig. 3).
transmitting the NAS message to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state.Sillanpaa shows that the NAS message, included in the RRCResumeRequest, is transmitted to the base station while the UE remains in RRC Inactive (Sillanpaa [0083], Fig. 3). The message is delivered through the AS layer without requiring the UE to transition to RRC Connected before transmission.
Regarding Claim 2, Sillanpaa teach the method of claim 1,
further comprising receiving, at the NAS layer, an indication that the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state. Sillanpaa teaches that during RRC Inactive, the NAS layer provides a Registration message to the AS layer, which is then transmitted to the base station and core network (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly teach that the NAS layer receives an indication from the AS layer that transmission in RRC Inactive is supported.
Kim teaches that the NAS layer performs session and mobility management and communicates with the AS layer (RRC) to transmit signaling to the MME (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that support for transmission during RRC Inactive may be known based on capability exchange or system configuration, and that the NAS layer may initiate signaling procedures only when support for a specific transmission state (e.g., RRC Inactive) is known (Kim [0091], [0093]). This implies that the NAS layer receives an indication from the AS layer confirming such support.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s teaching of NAS message delivery during RRC Inactive with Kim’s teaching of inter-layer communication indicating RRC capability. The combination yields a system in which the NAS layer receives an indication from the AS layer that transmission in RRC Inactive is supported, enabling the NAS to proceed with signaling only when appropriate. This results in a predictable improvement in protocol efficiency and aligns with layered communication principles.
3. (canceled)
Regarding Claim 4, Sillanpaa teach the method of claim 2,
further comprising: providing, to the AS layer, a request to indicate whether the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state; andreceiving, at the NAS layer, the indication that the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state in response to the request. Sillanpaa teaches that the NAS layer provides a Registration message to the AS layer (RRC) during the RRC Inactive state and that this message is transmitted to the base station as part of an RRCResumeRequest (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer explicitly sends a request to the AS layer asking whether RRC Inactive transmission is supported, nor that a response is received back.
Kim teaches that the NAS layer may initiate signaling procedures after determining that the AS layer supports specific behaviors (e.g., RRC Inactive transmission). Kim explains that such support may be determined through capability exchange or configuration between the NAS and AS layers, implying a request/response interaction between NAS and AS (Kim [0091], [0093], [0099]– [0101], [0112]). This includes scenarios where the NAS layer queries AS support for certain procedures and receives confirmation prior to initiating signaling.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Sillanpaa’s RRC Inactive messaging procedure to incorporate Kim’s teaching of an explicit NAS-to-AS request and AS-to-NAS indication. The combination results in a method where the NAS layer sends a request to determine AS support for transmission in RRC Inactive, and receives a corresponding response, improving inter-layer awareness and avoiding unsupported operations. This would be a predictable design aligned with protocol layering principles and known NAS-AS communication patterns.
Regarding Claim 5, Sillanpaa teach the method of claim 4,
further comprising determining that a procedure which causes sending of the NAS message has been triggered. Sillanpaa teaches that a UE in an RRC Inactive state initiates NAS-level signaling that includes a registration message, which is provided to the RRC layer and transmitted in an RRCResumeRequest (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], Fig. 3). Sillanpaa also shows in Fig. 2 and [0082] that a UE-triggered transition from RRC Inactive to RRC Connected involves the use of an I-RNTI and a Resume procedure that includes NAS signaling.
However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly teach that the NAS layer determines that the triggering procedure has occurred.
Kim teaches that the NAS layer performs session and mobility management and determines when to initiate procedures such as registration or service requests based on mobility or RRC state transitions (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim explains that triggering conditions for NAS procedures can include mobility events or changes in RRC state, which the NAS layer may detect through interaction with the AS layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s teaching of NAS signaling during RRC Inactive with Kim’s teaching that the NAS layer can determine when a triggering event has occurred. The combination yields a system in which the NAS layer determines that a triggering condition has been met (e.g., a mobility event or resume condition) and responds by sending a NAS message. This integration improves autonomy and responsiveness of the NAS layer in initiating signaling procedures, consistent with 3GPP system design.
6-12. (canceled)
Regarding Claim 13, Sillanpaa teaches the method of claim 1,
further comprising receiving a downlink NAS message while the UE is in the RRC-inactive state; and performing an NAS procedure based on the downlink NAS message while the UE maintains the RRC inactive state.
Sillanpaa discloses that during RRC Inactive, the UE performs a resume procedure involving NAS signaling. As shown in Fig. 3 and [0109], the NAS message is embedded in the RRC message as “DedicatedNASInfo,” allowing optimal delivery from the UE to the core network. Sillanpaa further teaches that downlink NAS messages (e.g., NAS acknowledgments or information from the core network) can be delivered to the UE while it remains in the RRC Inactive state (Sillanpaa [0109]). These messages may be conveyed either as standalone RRC downlink messages or as part of the RRC Resume or Release signaling.
Additionally, Sillanpaa [0092]– [0099] describe that upon receiving such downlink NAS messages, the UE can perform NAS-level procedures (e.g., processing a Registration Accept, handling mobility management, or triggering additional signaling), and that this is done without requiring the UE to leave the RRC Inactive state. This flow enables continued NAS operations while maintaining the inactive connection state, reducing signaling load and improving efficiency.
Regarding Claim 14, Sillanpaa teach the method of claim 1,
further comprising receiving, at the NAS layer, an indication that transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state is enabled.
Sillanpaa teaches that during the RRC Inactive state, the NAS layer provides a Registration message to the AS layer for inclusion in an RRCResumeRequest, which is transmitted to the base station and ultimately processed by the AMF (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3). Sillanpaa also discloses that the outcome of the RNA update procedure and the capability of the RAN may determine whether the UE remains in RRC Inactive or transitions to RRC Connected, implying some level of support determination for transmission during RRC Inactive (Sillanpaa [0083]).
However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly teach that the NAS layer receives an indication as a formal signal or configuration update from the AS layer confirming that RRC Inactive transmission is supported.
Kim teaches that support for transmission during RRC Inactive may be determined based on AS capability signaling or configuration exchange. Kim further explains that the NAS layer may wait for or request such information before proceeding with signaling, and that inter-layer communication enables the NAS to receive an indication that transmission is supported before acting (Kim [0091], [0093], [0099]– [0101], [0112]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s teaching of NAS message transmission during RRC Inactive with Kim’s teaching of explicit AS-to-NAS indication of capability support. The combination enables the NAS layer to receive an indication that transmission while in the RRC Inactive state is enabled, thereby avoiding unsupported signaling attempts and ensuring efficient inter-layer operation. This is a predictable improvement in NAS behavior aligned with 3GPP layering principles.
15-28. (canceled)
31. (canceled)
Regarding Claim 32, Sillanpaa teach A method of wireless communication, comprising: enabling, by a non-access stratum (NAS) layer associated with a user equipment (UE) while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, transmission of an uplink (UL) user data packet associated with a protocol data unit (PDU) session to a base station; Sillanpaa discloses that while in RRC Inactive, the NAS layer generates a Registration message and includes it in the RRCResumeRequest to the AS layer (Sillanpaa [0064]–[0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
However, Sillanpaa focuses on control signaling and does not explicitly teach enabling UL user data packets tied to PDU sessions during RRC Inactive.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs session and mobility management and is responsible for initiating procedures like PDU session establishment (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim also shows that the NAS layer can handle uplink data and service requests while the UE is in RRC Inactive if the network supports it. Furthermore, transmission in RRC Inactive is permitted if configured through system parameters or UE capability exchange (Kim [0091], [0093]).Thus, Kim implies that UL user data packet transmission (such as for a PDU session) may be enabled by NAS in the RRC Inactive state when supported.
providing, from the NAS layer, a request to resume a radio resource control (RRC) connection; Sillanpaa shows that the NAS message (e.g., Registration Request) itself triggers the resume procedure and is embedded in the RRCResumeRequest, which is sent by the AS layer to the base station (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], Fig. 3). This satisfies the limitation that the NAS layer initiates a request to resume the RRC connection.
transmitting the UL user data packet to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state. Kim teaches that once transmission in RRC Inactive is supported, data may be sent during RRC Inactive operation (Kim [0093]). This includes user plane packets (e.g., UL packets for PDU sessions), provided system support and configuration exist.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s teaching of resume-triggered NAS messaging with Kim’s teaching of NAS-layer management of PDU session data transmission in RRC Inactive. The combination provides a system that intelligently enables uplink user data transfer with reduced latency and signaling overhead, while remaining compliant with NAS/AS layered protocol design.
Regarding Claim 33, Sillanpaa teach:The method of claim 32, further comprising: receiving, at the NAS layer, an indication that the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state.Sillanpaa does not explicitly disclose this limitation. While it shows NAS-layer generated messages being passed to the AS layer during RRC Inactive (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065]), it does not disclose the NAS receiving an explicit indication from the AS that data transmission in RRC Inactive is supported.
Kim, however, describes a system in which the AS layer can signal support for RRC Inactive data transmission to the NAS layer. Specifically, Kim teaches that when the AS layer supports such data transmission, a configuration or system parameter may be exchanged between AS and NAS layers to enable such functionality (Kim [0093], [0099], [0101], [0112]). This includes settings exchanged during initial setup or updated based on network capability signaling.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Sillanpaa’s method to include the NAS layer receiving an indication from the AS layer that RRC Inactive transmission is supported, as taught by Kim. The combination improves communication protocol awareness and allows intelligent handling of NAS-originated uplink data based on AS-layer capabilities, enhancing RRC Inactive efficiency.
34. (canceled)
Regarding Claim 35, Sillanpaa teachesThe method of claim 33, further comprising: providing, to the AS layer, a request to indicate whether the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state; and receiving, at the NAS layer, the indication that the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state in response to the request.
Sillanpaa discloses procedures for transmitting a NAS message during RRC Inactive but does not describe the NAS layer actively querying the AS layer for capability support, nor receiving an explicit response (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065]).
Kim, however, teaches that the NAS and AS layers may exchange information regarding RRC Inactive support through signaling. Kim discloses that support for such transmission may be confirmed by system configurations or capability signaling (Kim [0093], [0099], [0101], [0112]). Kim also implies that interlayer messaging may occur to ensure synchronization between NAS procedures and AS support conditions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Sillanpaa’s system to incorporate Kim’s interlayer request/response exchange. This would allow the NAS layer to confirm AS-layer capabilities before proceeding with procedures in the RRC Inactive state, ensuring robust operation and preventing premature or unsupported signaling.
Regarding Claim 36, Sillanpaa teach
The method of claim 35, further comprising determining that the UL data packet for the PDU is to be sent with suspended user-plane resources.
Sillanpaa discloses that during RRC Inactive, the UE may send NAS messages (e.g., Registration Request) to resume the RRC connection and continue communication (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083]). However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly describe that the UL data packet is associated with suspended user-plane resources, nor that the determination is made in connection with that status.
Kim teaches the concept of suspended user-plane resources in the RRC Inactive state. Kim discloses that UL data can be transmitted even while the user-plane resources are suspended, and that signaling may occur to determine whether such data can be transmitted or buffered until re-establishment (Kim [0099], [0100], [0103]). This implies that a determination is made about whether UL data packets should be sent during RRC Inactive despite the suspension of user-plane bearers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Kim’s suspended resource handling into Sillanpaa’s method to enable efficient UL data transfer without prematurely resuming full RRC Connected state, improving latency and power efficiency.
37-43. (canceled)
Regarding Claim 44, Sillanpaa teach:The method of claim 32, further comprising: receiving, at the NAS layer, an indication that transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state is enabled. Sillanpaa teaches a method of transmitting NAS messages while the UE is in RRC Inactive (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083]), and that these messages are delivered from NAS to AS and sent to the base station without requiring RRC connection re-establishment.
However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly disclose that the NAS layer receives an indication from the AS layer that transmission during RRC Inactive is enabled.
Kim provides the missing disclosure, teaching that the AS layer may determine and inform higher layers (such as NAS) about the support status or enablement of data transmission during RRC Inactive (Kim [0099], [0102]– [0104]). Kim discusses that such signaling mechanisms exist to manage communication during suspended bearer conditions and partial connection states, implying interlayer coordination between AS and NAS regarding RRC Inactive transmission capabilities.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Kim’s teaching into Sillanpaa’s system to allow the NAS layer to make informed decisions based on AS capabilities, thus improving communication reliability and protocol coordination during RRC Inactive state.
45-53. (canceled)
Regarding Claim 54, Sillanpaa teach:The method of claim 32, further comprising: providing, to the AS layer from the NAS layer, an indication that a subsequent downlink message is expected. Sillanpaa teaches a method where the NAS layer initiates transmission of a message during RRC Inactive, and this message is passed to the AS layer (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083]). However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer provides an indication to the AS layer that a subsequent downlink message is expected.
Kim provides the missing teaching, explaining scenarios where upper layers (such as NAS) may inform the AS layer about expectations regarding upcoming data, including expected downlink communication (Kim [0099], [0102]– [0105]). Kim outlines methods for handling suspended bearers and partial connectivity states, where coordination between layers improves message scheduling and readiness for follow-up transmission or reception.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Kim’s inter-layer signaling method with Sillanpaa’s architecture to enable the NAS layer to inform the AS layer of expected downlink data. This coordination would improve downlink readiness and latency performance, particularly in RRC Inactive states.
Regarding Claim 55, Sillanpaa teach:The method of claim 32, wherein transmitting the UL data packet to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state comprises: transmitting the UL data packet in connection with a third message of a four-step random access channel (RACH) procedure. Sillanpaa teaches that the UE can transmit UL NAS data (e.g., Registration Request) while in RRC Inactive via the AS layer, using an RRCResumeRequest that includes DedicatedNASInfo (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly state that this transmission is tied to a specific message of a four-step RACH procedure.
Kim teaches the missing element, specifically that UL data can be transmitted in conjunction with the Msg3 of a four-step RACH procedure (Kim [0063], [0095]– [0096], [0101]). Kim explains that when the UE is in RRC Inactive, UL transmission—such as NAS messages—can occur during Msg3, the third message of the contention-based access.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Kim’s teaching of Msg3 transmission with Sillanpaa’s RRCResumeRequest architecture, resulting in a system where the UL NAS message or data packet is transmitted using Msg3 of the four-step RACH. This predictable enhancement would allow compliant 5G UEs to maintain low-latency behavior while staying in the RRC Inactive state.
56-122. (canceled)
Regarding Claim 123, Sillanpaa teaches a wireless communication device,
comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory. Sillanpaa discloses a user equipment (UE) including a transceiver, memory, and processor configured to perform wireless communication procedures, as shown in Fig. 1 and described in [0049] and [0066].
The one or more processors configured to provide, from a non-access stratum (NAS) layer to an access stratum (AS) layer associated with a user equipment (UE) while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, a NAS message to be transmitted to a mobility management entity via a base station; Sillanpaa discloses that while the UE is in the RRC Inactive state, the NAS layer generates a Registration message and provides it to the RRC layer (AS layer) for inclusion in an RRCResumeRequest (Sillanpaa [0064]–[0065], [0083], Fig. 3). This RRCResumeRequest, containing the NAS message as DedicatedNASInfo, is transmitted via the base station and forwarded to the AMF, which functions as the mobility management entity (Sillanpaa [0064]).
The one or more processors further configured to provide, from the NAS layer, a request to resume an RRC connection; Sillanpaa teaches that the NAS-generated Registration message initiates the RRC resume procedure. The inclusion of the NAS message in the RRCResumeRequest constitutes a request to resume the RRC connection (Sillanpaa [0065], Fig. 3).
And transmit the NAS message to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state. Sillanpaa shows that the NAS message, encapsulated in the RRCResumeRequest, is transmitted to the base station while the UE remains in the RRC Inactive state, prior to any transition to RRC Connected (Sillanpaa [0083], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 124, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver,
memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the NAS layer generates a registration message and provides the message to the RRC (AS) layer for inclusion in an RRC Resume Request, which is transmitted to a base station and forwarded toward a mobility management entity (e.g., AMF) in the core network (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches NAS-layer message generation and delivery via the AS layer during RRC inactive operation.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer receives an indication from the AS layer that transmission of data is supported while the UE is in the RRC inactive state. Sillanpaa assumes the availability of RRC inactive transmission but does not disclose an explicit inter-layer indication being received at the NAS layer confirming such support.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs mobility and session management and communicates with the AS (RRC) layer to determine when signaling procedures may be initiated (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that support for signaling RRC states is determined based on capability exchange or system configuration information exchanged between protocol layers, including whether transmission is supported in low-power or inactive states (Kim [0091], [0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of NAS signaling during RRC inactive with Kim’s teaching that NAS-layer signaling is contingent upon AS-layer capability indications. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the NAS layer receiving an indication from the AS layer confirming support for data transmission during RRC inactive before initiating NAS-layer procedures.
Regarding claim 125, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising
a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the NAS layer generates a registration message and provides the message to the RRC (AS) layer for inclusion in an RRC Resume Request, which is transmitted to a base station and forwarded toward a mobility management entity (e.g., AMF) in the core network (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches NAS–AS interaction during RRC inactive operation for NAS message transmission.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer provides a request to the AS layer to indicate whether the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state, nor that the NAS layer receives an indication in response to such a request confirming that transmission is supported. Sillanpaa assumes the availability of RRC inactive transmission but does not disclose a request–response inter-layer signaling exchange between the NAS and AS layers to determine transmission support.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs mobility and session management and communicates with the AS (RRC) layer to determine when signaling procedures may be initiated (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that support for signaling RRC states is determined based on capability exchange or system configuration information exchanged between protocol layers, including whether transmission is supported in low-power or inactive states (Kim [0091], [0093]). Kim therefore teaches that higher-layer procedures may request AS-layer state or capability information and receive a corresponding indication before initiating signaling.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of NAS signaling during RRC inactive with Kim’s teaching of inter-layer request and capability signaling between the NAS and AS layers. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the NAS layer providing a request to the AS layer to determine whether transmission during RRC inactive is supported and receiving, in response, an indication confirming such support before initiating NAS-layer procedures.
Regarding claim 126, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising,
a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the UE initiates RRC-related procedures to resume communication with the network using an I-RNTI allocated by the last serving base station (Sillanpaa [0066]– [0067], Fig. 1).
Sillanpaa further teaches that the UE determines that a procedure which causes sending of a NAS message has been triggered. Specifically, FIG. 2 illustrates a UE-triggered transition from RRC_INACTIVE to RRC_CONNECTED initiated by an RRC Resume procedure (Sillanpaa [0056], Fig. 2). As described in paragraph [0082], the UE resumes from RRC_INACTIVE by providing the I-RNTI, causing the base station to retrieve UE context, complete the RRC resumption procedure, perform a path switch, and release UE context at the last serving base station (Sillanpaa [0082]).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches that the UE determines that a triggering procedure (i.e., an RRC Resume procedure) has occurred, and that this procedure causes the sending of NAS-related signaling as part of resumed communication with the network.
However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly teach that the determination that the procedure has been triggered is performed at the NAS layer, nor does Sillanpaa explicitly disclose that such determination is used by the NAS layer to control NAS message transmission logic.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs mobility and session management functions and determines when NAS procedures, such as registration or service request procedures, are triggered based on mobility events and RRC state transitions (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that NAS procedures are initiated in response to triggering conditions detected through interaction with the AS layer, including changes in RRC state.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of UE-triggered RRC resume procedures with Kim’s teaching that NAS procedures are triggered based on detected RRC state transitions. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the NAS layer determining that a procedure which causes sending of a NAS message has been triggered and initiating NAS message transmission in response, consistent with standard layered protocol operation and improving coordination between NAS and AS layers.
Regarding claim 127, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, NAS signaling is exchanged between the UE and the core network as part of resume-related procedures (Sillanpaa Fig. 3; [0109]). Sillanpaa discloses that NAS messages may be embedded in RRC messages as “DedicatedNASInfo,” allowing NAS information to be conveyed while the UE remains in RRC inactive.
Sillanpaa further teaches that downlink NAS messages, such as NAS acknowledgments or other core-network-provided NAS information, can be delivered to the UE while the UE remains in the RRC inactive state, either via standalone RRC downlink messages or as part of RRC Resume or Release signaling (Sillanpaa [0109]).
Sillanpaa further discloses that upon receiving such downlink NAS messages, the UE performs NAS-level procedures, including processing registration-related information, handling mobility management functions, or triggering subsequent NAS signaling, without transitioning the UE out of the RRC inactive state (Sillanpaa [0092]– [0099]).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches that while the UE maintains the RRC inactive state, the UE receives a downlink NAS message and performs an NAS procedure based on the received downlink NAS message.
Regarding claim 128, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the UE initiates an RRCConnectionResumeRequest message that includes a NAS-level message, such as a Registration Request for RNA update, which is transmitted to the base station and routed to the core network for processing (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches that NAS messaging is supported and transmitted while the UE is in the RRC inactive state.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer receives an indication that transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state is enabled. Rather, Sillanpaa discloses NAS message transmission during RRC inactive operation without explicitly describing an indication being received at the NAS layer confirming that such transmission is enabled.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs mobility and session management and communicates with the AS (RRC) layer to determine when signaling procedures may be initiated (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that support for signaling RRC states, including RRC inactive, may be determined based on AS-level configuration or capability exchange information, which is communicated to higher layers such as the NAS layer (Kim [0091], [0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of NAS message transmission during RRC inactive with Kim’s teaching that NAS-layer behavior is informed by AS-layer configuration or capability indications. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the NAS layer receiving an indication that transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state is enabled, prior to or in conjunction with performing NAS procedures.
Regarding claim 131, Sillanpaa teaches a wireless communication device comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0028]– [0030], Fig. 3). Sillanpaa further teaches that while a user equipment (UE) is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the NAS layer initiates signaling procedures that allow uplink communication toward a base station and coordination with the AS layer for connection resumption (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0066]).
Sillanpaa teaches that the NAS layer enables transmission of uplink (UL) data associated with an ongoing communication session while the UE remains in RRC inactive. Sillanpaa discloses that uplink data transmission may be triggered prior to completion of RRC resume procedures and conveyed to the base station using available uplink resources during RRC inactive operation (Sillanpaa [0066]).
Sillanpaa further teaches that the NAS layer provides a request to resume an RRC connection by generating a Registration Request or Service Request and providing the request to the AS (RRC) layer for inclusion in an RRC Resume Request message, thereby initiating resumption of the RRC connection (Sillanpaa [0065]).
Sillanpaa additionally teaches that the UL data packet is transmitted to the base station while the UE remains in the RRC inactive state, prior to or in parallel with completion of the RRC resume procedure, enabling early delivery of uplink data and reduced latency (Sillanpaa [0066]).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches a wireless communication device in which the NAS layer enables uplink user data transmission associated with a PDU session, provides a request to resume an RRC connection, and transmits the uplink user data packet to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state.
Regarding claim 132, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the NAS layer generates a Registration or Service Request message and provides the message to the RRC (AS) layer for inclusion in an RRC Resume Request, which is transmitted to a base station and forwarded toward a mobility management entity (e.g., AMF) in the core network (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches NAS-layer message generation and transmission via the AS layer during RRC inactive operation.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer receives an indication from the AS layer that transmission of data is supported while the UE is in the RRC inactive state. Rather, Sillanpaa assumes the availability of RRC inactive transmission without explicitly disclosing that such support is indicated to the NAS layer by the AS layer.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs session and mobility management functions and communicates with the AS (RRC) layer to determine when signaling procedures may be initiated (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that support for transmission in particular RRC states, including RRC inactive, may be determined based on capability exchange or system configuration information exchanged between protocol layers, and that NAS-layer signaling behavior is contingent on knowledge of AS-layer transmission support (Kim [0091], [0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of NAS message transmission during RRC inactive with Kim’s teaching that NAS-layer behavior depends on AS-layer capability indications. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the NAS layer receiving an indication that the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state before or in conjunction with performing NAS procedures.
Regarding claim 133, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the NAS layer generates a Registration or Service Request message and provides the message to the RRC (AS) layer for inclusion in an RRC Resume Request, which is transmitted to a base station and forwarded toward a mobility management entity (e.g., AMF) in the core network (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches NAS–AS interaction during RRC inactive operation for NAS message transmission.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer provides a request to the AS layer to indicate whether the AS layer supports transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state, nor that the NAS layer receives an indication in response to such a request confirming that transmission is supported. Rather, Sillanpaa assumes the availability of RRC inactive transmission without disclosing a request–response inter-layer signaling exchange between the NAS and AS layers to determine transmission support.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs session and mobility management functions and communicates with the AS (RRC) layer to determine when signaling procedures may be initiated (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that support for transmission in particular RRC states, including RRC inactive, is determined based on capability exchange or system configuration information exchanged between protocol layers, and that higher-layer procedures may query AS-layer state or capability information and receive a corresponding indication before initiating signaling (Kim [0091], [0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of NAS message transmission during RRC inactive with Kim’s teaching of inter-layer request and capability signaling between the NAS and AS layers. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the NAS layer providing a request to the AS layer to determine whether transmission of data during the RRC inactive state is supported and receiving, in response, an indication confirming such support before initiating NAS-layer procedures.
Regarding claim 134, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that when a UE enters a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, user-plane resources associated with an established PDU session are suspended while the UE context is retained at the network (Sillanpaa [0056], [0082], Fig. 2). During this state, signaling procedures such as RRC resume are used to reestablish user-plane resources before full data transmission resumes.
Sillanpaa further teaches that uplink data transmission may be initiated in connection with resumption procedures while user-plane resources are not yet fully reactivated, and that NAS-initiated signaling may occur prior to restoration of suspended user-plane resources (Sillanpaa [0066]). This implies that uplink data handling is coordinated with the suspension and resumption state of user-plane resources during RRC inactive operation.
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches that uplink data transmission is associated with suspended user-plane resources during RRC inactive and resume procedures.
However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly teach that the UE determines that an uplink data packet for a PDU session is to be sent with suspended user-plane resources, nor does Sillanpaa expressly disclose that such a determination is made by higher-layer logic to control uplink transmission behavior.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs session and mobility management functions and determines how and when PDU session data is handled based on RRC state and availability of user-plane resources (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that when a UE is in a non-connected or inactive state, user-plane resources may be suspended, and higher-layer procedures determine whether data transmission should proceed using suspended or limited resources until full reactivation occurs (Kim [0091], [0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of suspended user-plane resources during RRC inactive operation with Kim’s teaching that NAS-level logic determines transmission behavior based on the status of user-plane resources. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the UE determining that an uplink data packet for a PDU session is to be sent while user-plane resources are suspended, consistent with standard layered protocol operation and improving coordination between NAS decision-making and AS-level resource management.
Regarding claim 135, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the UE initiates an RRCConnectionResumeRequest message that includes a NAS-level message, such as a Registration Request for RNA update, which is transmitted to the base station and routed to the core network for processing (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches that NAS messaging is supported and transmitted while the UE is in the RRC inactive state.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer receives an indication that transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state is enabled. Rather, Sillanpaa discloses NAS message transmission during RRC inactive operation without explicitly describing that such transmission capability is indicated to the NAS layer.
Kim discloses that the NAS layer performs mobility and session management functions and communicates with the AS (RRC) layer to determine when signaling procedures may be initiated (Kim [0099]– [0101], [0112]). Kim further teaches that support for transmission in particular RRC states, including RRC inactive, may be determined based on AS-level configuration or capability exchange information that is communicated to higher protocol layers, such as the NAS layer (Kim [0091], [0093]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of NAS message transmission during RRC inactive with Kim’s teaching that NAS-layer behavior is informed by AS-layer configuration or capability indications. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the NAS layer receiving an indication that transmission of data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state is enabled, consistent with standard layered protocol operation and improving coordination between NAS decision-making and AS-layer transmission control.
Claims 29, 30, 129, 130, and 137 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Sillanpaa et al. (US20200053818A1), hereinafter “Sillanpaa,” in view of Ingale et al. (US20200214070A1), hereinafter “Ingale.”
Regarding Claim 29, Sillanpaa teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein transmitting the NAS message to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state comprises transmitting the NAS message in connection with a third message of a four-step random access channel (RACH) procedure.
Sillanpaa teaches that the NAS layer provides a Registration message to the AS layer while the UE is in RRC Inactive. The message is included in an RRCResumeRequest, which is transmitted to the base station and processed by the AMF (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3). This shows that the NAS message is transmitted during RRC Inactive through the AS layer.
However, Sillanpaa does not explicitly teach that the NAS message is transmitted as part of the third message of a four-step RACH procedure.
Ingale teaches that the Setup Complete message, which includes a NAS PDU such as a Registration or Service Request, is transmitted as the third message in a four-step RACH procedure. The Setup Complete message, sent over SRB1, contains both RRC signaling and NAS content, and is transmitted after receiving the Setup message from the network (Ingale [0165]– [0170]). This message is part of the standardized four-step access procedure used in fallback or resume contexts and ensures efficient NAS delivery during the RACH exchange.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s teaching of NAS message transmission during RRC Inactive with Ingale’s teaching of embedding the NAS message into the third message of a four-step RACH procedure. The result is a system in which the NAS message is transmitted using the Setup Complete message in step three of RACH, which is a predictable integration of standard 3GPP procedures for signaling during resume or fallback scenarios.
Regarding Claim 30, Sillanpaa teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein transmitting the NAS message to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state comprises transmitting the NAS message in connection with a first message of a two-step random access channel (RACH) procedure. Sillanpaa teaches that during the RRC Inactive state, the NAS layer generates a registration message and provides it to the AS layer for inclusion in the RRCResumeRequest, which is then sent to the base station (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3). This shows that the NAS message is delivered while in RRC Inactive.
However, Sillanpaa does not disclose that the NAS message is transmitted in connection with a first message of a two-step RACH procedure.
Ingale teaches a two-step RACH process where the first message (e.g., MsgA) includes both preamble and uplink data. The uplink data can include RRC signaling and NAS information such as Registration Request or Service Request, depending on the configuration (Ingale [0156], [0168]). This approach enables faster connection setup and signaling with fewer roundtrips by embedding the NAS message directly in the first transmission of the RACH process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s teaching of NAS message delivery during RRC Inactive with Ingale’s teaching of embedding the NAS message into the first message of a two-step RACH procedure. This combination provides a reduced-latency method for delivering NAS messages while maintaining power efficiency, which aligns with known 3GPP procedures and predictable optimizations in resume or fallback operations.
Regarding claim 129, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the NAS layer generates a Registration message and provides the message to the RRC (AS) layer for inclusion in an RRC Resume Request, which is transmitted to the base station and forwarded toward the core network for processing by the AMF (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3). Sillanpaa further teaches that the RRC Resume Request includes a cause value (e.g., RNA update) and may embed a NAS-level message such as a Registration Request, triggering UE context retrieval and path switch procedures while the UE remains in the RRC inactive state (Sillanpaa [0083], Fig. 3).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches transmission of a NAS message to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state using an RRC resume procedure that is part of a multi-step signaling exchange between the UE and the base station.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS message is transmitted in connection with a third message of a four-step random access channel (RACH) procedure. Sillanpaa discloses NAS message transmission during RRC inactive operation but does not explicitly identify the NAS message as being carried in the third message of a four-step RACH process.
Ingale discloses that during fallback, resume, or access procedures, a NAS message such as a Service Request or Registration message is transported as a NAS PDU within a Setup Complete message (Ingale [0166]). Ingale further teaches that the Setup Complete message is transmitted on SRB1 as part of a four-step RACH procedure and constitutes the third message of the four-step RACH process, following reception of a Setup message and preceding release or completion signaling (Ingale [0165]– [0170]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of transmitting a NAS message while the UE is in the RRC inactive state with Ingale’s teaching of carrying a NAS PDU in the Setup Complete message as the third message of a four-step RACH procedure. Doing so would have predictably resulted in transmitting the NAS message to the base station in connection with the third message of a four-step RACH procedure, consistent with established 3GPP access and fallback mechanisms and improving reliability of NAS delivery during resume or recovery scenarios.
Regarding claim 130, Sillanpaa teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations (Sillanpaa [0049], [0066], Fig. 1). Sillanpaa further teaches that while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, the NAS layer provides a Registration Request or Service Request message to the RRC (AS) layer for inclusion in an RRC Resume Request, which is transmitted to the base station and forwarded toward the core network for processing by the AMF (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0065], [0083], Fig. 3).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches transmission of a NAS message to the base station while the UE is in the RRC inactive state as part of an RRC resume signaling flow.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS message is transmitted in connection with a first message of a two-step random access channel (RACH) procedure. Sillanpaa discloses NAS message transmission during RRC inactive operation but does not explicitly identify the NAS message as being carried in the first message of a two-step RACH process.
Ingale discloses a fallback or resumes scenario in which, after failing to retrieve stored UE context, the UE transitions to RRC inactive or idle and the NAS layer triggers a new service request (Ingale [0165]– [0166]). Ingale further teaches that in such a scenario, a NAS PDU, such as an Attach, TAU, or Service Request message, is included in a Resume Request message transmitted as part of a two-step RACH procedure, wherein the Resume Request constitutes the first message of the two-step RACH flow and carries the NAS payload along with security parameters and cause information (Ingale [0169]– [0170]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of transmitting a NAS message during RRC inactive operation with Ingale’s teaching of carrying the NAS message in the first message of a two-step RACH procedure. Doing so would have predictably resulted in transmitting the NAS message to the base station in connection with the first message of a two-step RACH procedure, consistent with established 3GPP fallback and resume mechanisms and providing reduced signaling overhead and faster access recovery.
Regarding claim 137, Sillanpaa teaches a wireless communication device comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations, including NAS-triggered uplink (UL) transmission and RRC Resume signaling while a user equipment (UE) is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state (Sillanpaa [0064]– [0066], Fig. 3). Sillanpaa further teaches that the NAS layer provides a Service Request or Registration message to the AS (RRC) layer for inclusion in an RRC Resume Request, and that uplink information may be transmitted from the UE to the base station during the RRC resume process while the UE remains in the RRC inactive state (Sillanpaa [0083]– [0084]).
Thus, Sillanpaa teaches uplink transmission of data in connection with RRC resume signaling while the UE is in the RRC inactive state.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the uplink data packet is transmitted in connection with a third message of a four-step random access channel (RACH) procedure. Sillanpaa discloses uplink transmission during resume procedures but does not explicitly identify the uplink data packet as being carried in the third message of a four-step RACH flow.
Ingale discloses a four-step RACH procedure in which the third message, such as an RRC Resume Request or Setup Complete message, includes NAS-layer information and may carry uplink data while the UE is in the RRC inactive state (Ingale [0169]– [0171], [0058], [0134]). Ingale teaches that the third message in the four-step RACH procedure conveys identifiers, context information, and optionally user data necessary for re-establishing communication with the network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of NAS-originated uplink data transmission during RRC inactive operation with Ingale’s teaching that uplink data may be transmitted in the third message of a four-step RACH procedure. Doing so would have predictably resulted in transmitting the uplink data packet to the base station in connection with the third message of a four-step RACH procedure, consistent with standardized 5G access mechanisms and improving latency and signaling efficiency during inactive-to-active transitions.
Claim 136 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Sillanpaa et al. (US20200053818A1), hereinafter “Sillanpaa,” in view of Yamamoto et al. (US20240089889A1), hereinafter “Yamamoto.”
Regarding claim 136, Sillanpaa teaches a wireless communication device comprising a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured to perform NAS and AS layer operations, including NAS-triggered RRC resume procedures and uplink data transmission while a user equipment (UE) is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state (Sillanpaa [0028]– [0030], [0064]– [0066], Fig. 3). Sillanpaa teaches that the NAS layer coordinates with the AS (RRC) layer to initiate resume signaling and uplink transmission during RRC inactive operation, satisfying the structural and operational context of claim 131.
However, Sillanpaa does not teach that the NAS layer provides, to the AS layer, an indication that a subsequent downlink message is expected. Sillanpaa discloses NAS-initiated resume and uplink signaling but does not explicitly describe NAS-to-AS signaling that informs the AS layer of an expected downlink transmission while the UE remains in the RRC inactive state.
Yamamoto discloses that the NAS layer provides an indication to the AS (RRC) layer that a downlink message is expected, thereby prompting the AS layer to prepare for reception of downlink signaling or data (Yamamoto [0051]– [0053], [0073]– [0075], Fig. 5). Yamamoto teaches that such an indication may be conveyed via NAS signaling or a trigger flag, allowing the AS layer to adjust timing behavior, activate reception resources, or initiate appropriate RRC procedures in anticipation of an incoming downlink message during RRC inactive operation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Sillanpaa’s disclosure of NAS-initiated RRC resume and uplink signaling during RRC inactive with Yamamoto’s teaching of providing an explicit NAS-to-AS indication that a subsequent downlink message is expected. Doing so would have predictably resulted in the NAS layer providing such an indication to the AS layer, enabling more efficient preparation for downlink reception and improving responsiveness and latency during RRC inactive transitions, consistent with established 3GPP design goals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLA CHRISTOPHE whose telephone number is (571)272-4666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5pm, ET.
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, JEFFREY RUTKOWSKI can be reached at (571)270-1215. 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.
/ANNABELLA CHRISTOPHE/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/JEFFREY M RUTKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415