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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on May 01, 2026 in response to the first office action on merit.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-12, 25, and 29. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, and 29.
Previously canceled claims 13-24, and 26-28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 01, 2026 with respect to amended claims have been considered but they are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejections (see 102/103 rejections below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant has amended claim 29 which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajadurai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2016/0029213 A1 / or “Rajadurai” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Rajadurai discloses “A data transmission protection method, wherein the method comprises” (Abstract: a method and system of creating a secure connection between a User Equipment and a first eNB and a second eNB):
“sending, by a first node to a second node, information representing a security protection capability supported by the first node” (Fig. 15: SeNB 106 i.e., a “first node”; MeNB 104 i.e., a “second node”; and Para 0351: the MeNB 104 i.e., the “second node” receives security capabilities i.e., a “security protection capability” from the SeNB 106 i.e., the “first node”), “wherein the security protection capability supported by the first node comprises an integrity protection algorithm supported by the first node” (Para 0352: the security capabilities i.e., a “security protection capability” can include integrity algorithms i.e., an “integrity protection algorithm”, and ciphering algorithms),
“and wherein the information representing the security protection capability supported by the first node is used by the second node to perform integrity verification on data from the first node using the integrity protection algorithm supported by the first node” (Para 0352: the security capabilities i.e., a “security protection capability” can include integrity algorithms i.e., an “integrity protection algorithm”, and ciphering algorithms).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Rajadurai discloses “wherein the first node sends a security parameter of the first node to the second node through a communication interface setup request message; and the security parameter of the first node represents the information about the security protection capability supported by the first node” (Para 0352: the security capabilities i.e., a “security protection capability” can include integrity algorithms i.e., an “integrity protection algorithm”, and ciphering algorithms i.e., a “security parameter”; and Para 0340: where X2 interface is used to communicate information).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Rajadurai discloses “wherein the first node sends a security parameter of the first node to the second node through a configuration update message; and the security parameter of the first node represents the information about the security protection capability supported by the first node” (Para 0352: the security capabilities i.e., a “security protection capability” can include integrity algorithms i.e., an “integrity protection algorithm”, and ciphering algorithms).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Rajadurai discloses “wherein the method further comprises: when there is an update of the security protection capability supported by the first node, sending, by the first node to the second node, information representing a latest security protection capability supported by the first node” (Fig. 15: SeNB 106 i.e., a “first node”; MeNB 104 i.e., a “second node”; and Para 0351: the MeNB 104 i.e., the “second node” receives security capabilities i.e., a “security protection capability” from the SeNB 106 i.e., the “first node”).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Rajadurai discloses “wherein the security parameter of the first node comprises a first index identifier, and the first index identifier represents an integrity protection algorithm and an integrity key calculation parameter that are supported by the first node” (Para 0352: the security capabilities i.e., a “security protection capability” can include integrity algorithms i.e., an “integrity protection algorithm”, and ciphering algorithms i.e., a “security parameter”).
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is directed to a first node corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 25 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is directed to a computer program product corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 29 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3, 5, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajadurai in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2023/0083985 A1 / or “Kim” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 2, Rajadurai discloses use of X2 interface in communication between the base stations (Fig. 1A).
But Rajadurai fails to specially disclose of an Xn interface to setup communication between the base stations.
However, Kim discloses “wherein the communication interface setup request message is an Xn interface setup request message” (Kim, Para 0353: connection established through X-n interface; and Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of an Xn interface to setup communication between the base stations of Kim to system of Rajadurai to create a system where Xn interface would allow base stations to manage resources across different network slices and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated combine to ensure quality of service for diverse applications.
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 4, Rajadurai in view Kim disclose “wherein the configuration update message is a next generation radio access network node configuration update message, and the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, a next generation radio access network node configuration update acknowledge message from the second node” (Kim, Para 0212-0213).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 1, Rajadurai discloses connection reconfiguration message between the base stations and UE (Rajadurai, Para 0349).
But Rajadurai fails to specially disclose user equipment providing radio resource control resume request message with an inactive radio network temporary identifier I-RNTI, a message authentication code for integrity MAC-I, and a request cause.
However, Kim discloses “wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, a radio resource control resume request message from user equipment UE, wherein the radio resource control resume request message comprises an inactive radio network temporary identifier I-RNTI, a message authentication code for integrity MAC-I, and a request cause” (Kim, Para 0268: provides an I-RNTI, a MAC-I and a reason in the resume request message);
“determining, by the first node, that an anchor base station of the UE is the second node; and sending, by the first node, a retrieve UE context request message to the second node, wherein the retrieve UE context request message carries a cell identifier of a target cell, the I- RNTI, the MAC-I, and the request cause” (Kim, Para 0280).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of provides an I-RNTI, a MAC-I and a reason of Kim to system of Rajadurai to create a system where the UE connection resume request message with the I-RNTI, the MAC-I and the reason to established connection to the new NG-RAN and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated combine to established authenticated handover of the UE (Kim, Para 0370-0371).
Regarding claim 10, in view of claim 9, Rajadurai in view Kim disclose “wherein the radio resource control resume request message and the retrieve UE context request message further carry a second index identifier, and the second index identifier represents an integrity protection algorithm and an integrity key calculation parameter that are used by the UE to perform security protection on the radio resource control resume request message” (Kim, Para 0113: integrity protection).
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 10, Rajadurai in view Kim disclose “wherein the retrieve UE context request message comprises a message body container, and the container encapsulates one or more of the following information: the I-RNTI, the MAC-I, the request cause, the cell identifier, and the second index identifier” (Kim, Para 0113: ciphering and deciphering performed; and Para 0268).
Regarding claim 12, in view of claim 9, Rajadurai in view Kim disclose “wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, a retrieve context failure message from the second node, wherein the retrieve context failure message carries information representing a latest security protection capability supported by the second node; and sending, by the first node, a radio resource control release message to the UE, wherein the radio resource control release message carries the information representing the latest security protection capability supported by the second node, and is used by the UE to perform security protection again on the radio resource control resume request message based on the information about the latest security protection capability supported by the second node” (Kim, Para 0291).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajadurai in view of Kamel M. Shaheen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2022/0248209 A1 / or “Shaheen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Rajadurai discloses connection reconfiguration message between the base stations and UE (Rajadurai, Para 0349).
But Rajadurai fails to specially disclose transmitting a security capability information message in a broadcast message.
However, Shaheen discloses “wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the first node, a broadcast message, wherein the broadcast message carries the information representing the security protection capability supported by at least one of the first node or information representing a security protection capability supported by the second node” (Shaheen, Fig. 9A; and Para 0141: discloses a base station broadcasting message that provides information about the base station capabilities).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of transmitting the security capability information message in a broadcast message of Shaheen to the system of Rajadurai to have a system where it is determined where the base station is capable of supporting the intended function required and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to achieved the proper functionality needed for the UE and base stations to communicate (Shaheen, Para 0142).
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 20220210868 A1) discloses :
[0272] … the RRC request message may comprise at least one of: an RRC early data transmission request message, an RRC resume request message, an RRC setup request message, and/or the like. In an example, the RRC request message may comprise at least one of a resume identifier (e.g., resumeldentity, I-RNTI, shortl-RNTI), a resume MAC-I (e.g., resumeMAC-I, shortResumeMAC-I), a resume cause.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
