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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 06/11/2024.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 and 22 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are rejected.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, 21-24, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US_20180324594_A1_Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a network node for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory (Chen figures 13, 17-18), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive, from a network entity in connection with an access procedure, information indicative of at least one of a security capability (Chen figure 13, step 16, paragraph 452, “…the NAS security mode command message further includes a UE security capability sent back by the MME”. The UE is corresponding to the claimed “network node”, and the eNB is corresponding to the claimed “network entity”) or an energy transfer or charging capability; and connect to the network entity to obtain network access based on the security capability (Chen figure 13, steps 17-22, paragraphs 408-413) or the energy transfer or charging capability.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the information indicative of at least one of the security capability or the energy transfer or charging capability, are configured to: receive information identifying the security capability (Chen figure 13, step 16, paragraph 452, “…the NAS security mode command message further includes a UE security capability sent back by the MME”. The UE is corresponding to the claimed “network node”, and the eNB is corresponding to the claimed “network entity”)
Claim 3 further define an alternative of claim 1 (information indicative of at least one of a security capability or an energy transfer or charging capability). As discussed above, Chen discloses “information indicative of a security capability” and thus all the limitations of claim 3 have been met by addressing the alternative.
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit information indicative of a security configuration or an energy transfer or charging configuration of the network node (Chen figure 13, step 14, paragraph 405, “The UE sends a UE capability information message to the eNB, to report the UE capability information”, and paragraph 3, “… UE capability information such as a network capability and a security capability…”, paragraph 40, “if the UE security capability included in the UE capability information…”); and wherein the one or more processors, to connect to the network entity, are configured to: connect to the network entity based on the security configuration (Chen figure 13, steps 17-22, paragraphs 408-413) or the energy transfer or charging configuration.
Claim 7 further define an alternative of claim 1 (information indicative of at least one of a security capability or an energy transfer or charging capability). As discussed above, Chen discloses “information indicative of a security capability” and thus all the limitations of claim 7 have been met by addressing the alternative.
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches a network entity for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Chen figures 13, 17-18), configured to: transmit, to a network node in connection with an access procedure, information indicative of at least one of a security capability (Chen figure 13, step 16, paragraph 452, “…the NAS security mode command message further includes a UE security capability sent back by the MME”. The UE is corresponding to the claimed “network node”, and the eNB is corresponding to the claimed “network entity”) or an energy transfer or charging capability; and connect to the network node to provide network access based on the security capability (Chen figure 13, steps 17-22, paragraphs 408-413) or the energy transfer or charging capability.
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 22, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 24, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 26, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 28, Chen teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20180324594_A1_Chen in view of US_20250234419_A1_Jin.
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the network node of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the network node is an in-coverage network node and wherein the one or more processors, to receive the information indicative of at least one of the security capability or the energy transfer or charging capability, are configured to: receive, via an access link, the information indicative of at least one of the security capability or the energy transfer or charging capability via at least one of: a synchronization signal block, a physical broadcast channel, a master information block, a system information block, a physical downlink shared channel, a physical downlink control channel, downlink control information, a random access channel message, or a random access channel response message.
Jin from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the network node is an in-coverage network node (Jin figure 3, the NR UE is in the serving areas of NR gNB 3-10 and eNB 3-30) and wherein the one or more processors, to receive the information indicative of at least one of the security capability (Jin figure 3, the NR UE is in the service area of NR gNB 3-10) or the energy transfer or charging capability, are configured to: receive, via an access link, the information indicative of at least one of the security capability or the energy transfer or charging capability via at least one of: a synchronization signal block, a physical broadcast channel (Jin figure 6, steps 6-15 to 6-20, paragraph 134, “When the base station broadcasts the new MAC-I information through system information”, paragraph 138, “…the base station to commonly broadcast the information to all UEs.”, and paragraph 158, “In step 6-20, the UE ME 6-02 may receive the system information broadcast by the base station and check whether the base station has the new security capability”), a master information block, a system information block, a physical downlink shared channel, a physical downlink control channel, downlink control information, a random access channel message, or a random access channel response message.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Jin into Chen, since Chen suggests a technique for the base station transmitting security capability to the UE, and Jin suggests the beneficial way of broadcast the system information which including security capability thus allowing the base station to commonly broadcast the information to all UEs. (Jin paragraphs 138) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 11, Chen and Jin teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Chen and Jin teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 25, Chen and Jin teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20180324594_A1_Chen in view of WO_2021232239_A1_Xu
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the network node of claim 1,wherein the one or more processors, to receive the information indicative of at least one of the security capability or the energy transfer or charging capability, are configured to: receive the information indicative of at least one of the security capability or the energy transfer or charging capability (Chen figure 13, step 16, paragraph 452, “…the NAS security mode command message further includes a UE security capability sent back by the MME”).
Chen does not teach wherein the network node is an out-of-coverage network node, and receive, via a sidelink, the information via at least one of: a synchronization signal block, or a physical broadcast channel.
Xu from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the network node is an out-of-coverage network node (Xu figure 5, paragraph 48, “…The remote-UE is considered being in either out-of-coverage (OoC)…”), and receive, via a sidelink, the information via at least one of: a synchronization signal block, or a physical broadcast channel (Xu figure 5, paragraph 44, “The PC5 interface between the UE (i.e., remote-UE as described herein) and relay (i.e., relay-UE as described herein)…”, paragraph 65, “…the relay-UE may broadcast the serving cell information and optionally neighboring cell information for remote-UE to make a selection.…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Xu into Chen, since Chen suggests a technique for the base station transmitting security capability to the UE, and Xu suggests the beneficial way of the relay-UE may broadcast the serving cell information via PC5 link for the remote UE thus allow the remote UE to connect to the serving CN using the L3 relay via the relay-UE even it is in OoC (Xu paragraph 48) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 13, Chen and Xu teach the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, Chen and Xu teach the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 22, Chen and Xu teach the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference US_20240259797_A1_Fu, teaches the message conveyed by the remote UE while out of coverage may be a Direct Communication Request (DCR) message. In some aspects, the message conveyed by the remote UE may include security capabilities of the remote UE (Fu figure 3, paragraphs 9, 131).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights