DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 1/8/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7, 13-17, and 19 are pending.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 6, 8-12, 18 and 20 have been cancelled.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the communication filed, applicant argues in substance that:
Teyeb fails to disclose or teach the limitation “determining the second security algorithm to use based on a rule” because Teyeb does not disclose the various action(s) involved in determining the security algorithm to use, a UE that notifies the network of a choice, “asks” the network for an algorithm, or “autonomously releases” a connection to resolve a conflict as cited in remarks, pg. 8-9.
In response to argument [a], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
The amendments merely require only one of the alternatives to be taught by the prior art to satisfy the limitation. With this interpretation, the limitation “determining the second security algorithm to use based on a rule” is explicitly taught by Teyeb. Teyeb discloses a rule-based determination of the second security algorithm (LTE algorithm) when the first (NR) algorithm lacks an equivalent, during inter-RAT RRC re-establishment from NR to LTE. Specifically [0080] “If the UE is changing the PDCP version from NR to LTE due to any of the previous embodiments, it also optionally performs a mapping from NR security algorithms for encryption and integrity protection to pre-defined LTE algorithms. Similar mapping can also be performed when changing from LTE PDCP to NR PDCP (mapping from LTE algorithm to NR algorithm). The mappings could be 1-to-1 for NR and LTE algorithms, which have similar properties. For new NR-only algorithms it is possible to map to a predefined (or default) LTE algorithm”
This discloses a rule for determining the second (LTE) algorithm (1) if the NR and LTE algorithms have similar properties, uses a 1-to-1 mapping; (2) if the NR algorithms is NR-only (no equivalent), map to a predefined default LTE algorithm. This occurs responsively during PDCP version change in RRC re-establishment (cross-referenced to [0037], [0051], where the UE re-establishes from NR-configured PDCP to LTE PDCP due to transition to a legacy LTE base station). The UE performs this determination based on the rule to enable secure communication using the second algorithm ([0085]: “the UE also maps a received NR encryption algorithm and/or an NR integrity protection algorithm to a pre-defined LTE algorithm. Accordingly, the UE is able to receive messages from the network node on the SRB and decode the messages using the LTE PDCP configuration and security configuration (such as the mapped pre-defined LTE algorithm) of the SRB”). Therefore, Teyeb discloses the limitation “determining the second security algorithm to use based on a rule”.
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)(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 1-5 and 13-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teyeb et al. (US 2020/0229259).
Regarding claim 1, Teyeb discloses a method performed by a communication device configured with a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, security algorithm associated with a first radio access technology, RAT, the method comprising:
responsive to the communication device being configured with a first PDCP security algorithm in the first RAT that does not have an equivalent security algorithm in a second RAT (Teyeb discloses a UE configured with NR PDCP security algorithm (first RAT: NR; first PDCP security algorithm; NR encryption/integrity algorithms) that may lack equivalents in LTE (second RAT), triggering handling during re-establishment (see [0055, 0080, 0097]; these are example responsive to detecting the mismatch when LTE is the master and NR is the secondary)),
determining a second security algorithm to use when performing radio resource control, RRC, reestablishment with the second RAT (Teyeb discloses the UE determining (via mapping) a second security algorithm (pre-defined LTE algorithm) for use in RRC re-establishment with LTE (second RAT) when NR algorithm lacks equivalents (see [0064-0065, 0080, 0085]; at step 106, the user equipment re-establishes the connection to the RAN, where the re-establishing includes applying a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) PDCP configuration to the SRB)), and
wherein determining the second security algorithm is use comprises at least one of:
determining the second security algorithm to use based on a rule (Teyeb uses rules for algorithm mapping in mismatches during reestablishment. Rules like property similarity or default fallback (see [0080]; ”The mappings could be 1-to-1 for NR and LTE algorithms, which have similar properties. For new NR-only algorithms it is possible to map to a predefined (or default) LTE algorithm”));
determining the second security algorithm based on an indication sent from the second RAT prior to the RRC reestablishment;
determining the second security algorithm based on an indication from a RAT node towards which the communication device reestablishes a connection to the second RAT;
deciding the second security algorithm to sue by the communication device and notifying the choice to the network;
transmitting a message to the second RAT to ask which security algorithm should be used as the second security algorithm and receiving a response message from the second RAT with an indication of the second security algorithm to use;
autonomously releasing an RRC connection and transiting to RRC IDLE, and triggering random access towards a same cell in order to initiate a new connection by sending an RRC setup request with an indication that the initiation of the new connection is due to a conflict in what security algorithm to choose upon RRC reestablishment; and/or
triggering a new re-selection procedure for selecting a new cell, and performing a random access towards the new cell with an indication that the communication device has a conflict in selecting a second security algorithm that does not have an equivalent in NR; and
using the second security algorithm when performing RRC reestablishment with the second RAT (Teyeb discloses the UE using the second (mapped LTE) algorithm during RRC re-establishment with LTE (see [0080]; “if the UE is changing the PDCP version from NR to LTE..., it also optionally performs a mapping from NR security algorithms for encryption and integrity protection to pre-defined LTE algorithms) The mapped LTE algorithm (second) is used to secure SRB1 during re-establishment, ensuring compatibility with legacy LTE).
Regarding claim 2, Teyeb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first RAT and the second RAT are in a same network or are in different networks (Teyeb discloses NR as the first RAT (with PDCP security algorithms lacking LTE equivalents) and LTE as the second RAT in EN-DC re-establishment (see [0015, 0051 0080]; “EN-DC: LTE-NR dual connectivity where LTE is the master and NR is the secondary” and “the legacy base station is not configured to operate using that protocol”and “If the UE is changing the PDCP version from NR to LTE… For new NR-only algorithms it is possible to map to a predefined (or default) LTE algorithm”)).
Regarding claim 3, Teyeb discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the first RAT is a new radio, NR, RAT and the second RAT is a long-term evolution, LTE, RAT (Teyeb discloses both integrity and ciphering in PDCP security mappings (see [0080]; “mapping from NR security algorithms for encryption and integrity protection to pre-defined LTE algorithms”)).
Regarding claim 4, Teyeb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the second security algorithm to use comprises determining a default security algorithm to use (Teyeb discloses determining a default/predefined LTE algorithm received via signaling during initial NR setup (see [0080]; “The predefined (or default) LTE algorithm could either be signalled to the UE (e.g. when connected to NR, using NAS or RRC signalling) or it could be “hardcoded” in 3GPP specifications.” The “when connected to NR” implies first RRC setup. See [0049]; “UE is initially connected to a first (source) base station that is NR capable, SRB1 may be configured to operate using NR PDCP”)).
Regarding claim 5, Teyeb discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining the default security algorithm to use comprises at least one of: receiving the default security algorithm in a first setup of the RRC reestablishment connection (Teyeb teaches receiving the default via signaling during the initial NR connection setup (see [0085]; “the UE also receives receiving a pre-defined LTE algorithm and/or NR integrity protection algorithm from the network node. At step 106, the user equipment re-establishes the connection to the RAN, where the re-establishing includes applying a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) PDCP configuration to the SRB”); determining a mandatory security algorithm that is mandatory to be supported; and determining a null algorithm to use.
Regarding claim(s) 13-17, do(es) not teach or further define over the limitation in claim(s) 1-6 respectively. Therefore claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim(s) 1-6 respectively.
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 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 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 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb et al. (US 2020/0229259) in view of Li (US 2014/0051447).
Regarding claim 7, Teyeb discloses the invention substantially, however the prior art does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 6 wherein determining the second security algorithm based on the indication comprises obtaining the indication from system information.
Li in the field of the same endeavor discloses techniques for RRC connection reestablishment in LTE systems where, upon triggers like radio link faiure or handover faiure, the UE performs cell selection. In particular, Li teaches the following:
wherein determining the second security algorithm based on the indication comprises obtaining the indication from system information (Li teaches, during RRC reestablishment, the UE obtains an indication (base station ID) from SI (SIB1) to determine if to use the stored security algorithm (second, per stored context) for the procedure. If the indication matches, the UE reestablishes, leading to security reactivation using the context’s algorithm (see [0023]; “Step 101: A terminal searches for a target cell used for RRC connection reestablishment, and receives a system information block SIB1 message corresponding to the target cell”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the prior art with the teaching of Li to incorporate techniques for RRC connection reestablishment in LTE systems. One would have been motivated because using system information as in Li to pre-verify cell compatibility before applying Teyeb’s signaling enhances efficiency, avoiding reestablishment attempts on mismatched cells. This yields predictable results and improved success rates and reduced signaling overhead.
Regarding claim(s) 19, do(es) not teach or further define over the limitation in claim(s) 7 respectively. Therefore claim(s) 19 is/are rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim(s) 7 respectively.
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.
For the reason above, claims 1-5, 7, 13-17, and 19 have been rejected and remain pending.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
JIMMY H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/JIMMY H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451