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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kolekar.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolekar et al. (US 2019/0349765) in view of De Silva et al. (US 2022/0272539). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Kolekar discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (figs. 3 and 5), the method comprising: acquiring information
However, Kolekar fails to disclose acquiring information including a Message Authentication Code for Integrity (MAC-I). Da Silva discloses acquiring information including a Message Authentication Code for Integrity (MAC-I) in a radio resource control (RRC) idle state (fig. 3, step 201; para. 75, especially the first two sentences; para. 89, especially the last two sentences; paras. 13, 22 and 96); performing a verification for the MAC-I (step 203; para. 76); and performing a connection procedure with a base station in case that the MAC-I is valid based on the verification (step 214; para. 77, especially the first two sentences). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire information including a Message Authentication Code for Integrity (MAC-I) in the invention of Kolekar. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing an actual MAC-I (i.e., not requiring calculation or derivation) to a device for use in communication as is known in the art (De Silva, fig. 3 and paras. 75-77 and 89; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 3, Kolekar in view of De Silva discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information including the MAC-I is included in system information or a dedicated RRC message transmitted from the base station (De Silva, fig. 3 and paras. 75-77 and 89; note: SI in a dedicated RRC message).
Regarding claim 6, Kolekar in view of De Silva teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein acquiring the information including the MAC-I further comprises: transmitting, to the base station, a request message for the information; and receiving, from the base station, on-demand system information including the information as a response to the request message (Da Silva, para. 13, second and third sentences; paras. 22 and 96; note: SI signatures in various SIBs).
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 11, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1, 3 and 6, respectively, from the perspective of the base station (Kolekar, fig. 3, eNB; Da Silva, fig. 2, step 11 and para. 30).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1 and 6, respectively. In addition, Kolekar discloses the UE comprising (figs. 6 and 8): a transceiver (item 806); and a controller (item 804E) configured to (paras. 170-171) perform the method of claim 1.
Regarding claims 15, 17-18 and 20, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 7-9 and 11 respectively. In addition, Kolekar discloses the base station comprising (fig. 8 and para. 107; note: RAN node): a transceiver (item 806); and a controller (item 804E) configured to (paras. 170-171) perform the method of claim 7.
Claims 2, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolekar in view of De Silva, as applied to claim 1, 7 or 12 above, and in further view of Ohlsson et al. (US 2021/0153022).
Regarding claim 2, Kolekar in view of De Silva teaches and makes obvious connecting to, selecting or camping on a cell based on an integrity check of the MAC-I being successful (Kolekar, figs. 3 and 5; paras. 36, 48-50, 75 and 83; De Silva, fig. 3 and paras. 75-77 and 89) but fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a UE capability enquiry message to which the MAC-I is applied, before the AS security is activated; and transmitting, to the base station, a UE capability information message in response to the integrity check based on the MAC-I being successful.
However, Ohlsson discloses connecting to or selecting a cell, and receiving, from the cell before AS security is activated, a UE capability request information, and transmitting UE capability information (fig. 1, item 19; para. 76-77; note: a first portion of capability UE information is exchanged before AS security is activated). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have receiving, from the base station, a UE capability enquiry message to which the MAC-I is applied, before the AS security is activated; and transmitting, to the base station, a UE capability information message in response to the integrity check based on the MAC-I being successful in the invention of Kolekar in view of De Silva. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, transmitting less sensitive information or optimizing information transmission as is known in the art (Ohlsson, paras. 76-77, “information deemed less-sensitive and/or information deemed more impactful for early optimization”; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 8, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 2-3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 10, 14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights