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 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant amended the independent claims and argued that the current references do not disclose the new limitation. Examiner is using Rugeland et al. (US 20220394806 A1) to address the new limitation.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 10 – 12, 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 20210360494 A1) in view of Rugeland et al. (US 20220394806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, You discloses a communication method applied to a terminal device (Fig. 1, terminals 120; Fig. 2, UE; [0027]), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first network device, first indication information and security parameter information (Fig. 2, 1st network device is source base station and step S205;
[0042] discloses “In S205, a handover command is sent. The source base station sends a HO commend to the UE, and the HO commend can be used to forward the mobility control information to the UE by the source base station.”),
[0070] discloses “Specifically, the first handover command may refer to RRC Connection Reconfiguration message including the mobility Control Information, and the first handover command may include configuration information of the first target network device. For example, first handover command may include at least one of RACH resource, C-RNTI, the security algorithm of the target base station and a system message of the target base station”; wherein the 1st indication information is interpreted as the mobility control information and configuration information);
[0071] discloses “It should be understood that the first handover command may be sent by the source network device to the terminal device.”;
wherein the first indication information indicates that use of a security verification-based system information obtaining mechanism is allowed, and the security parameter information is used to perform security verification on system information (as above);
and sending a first message to a second network device, (Fig. 2, step S206; [0043] discloses “In S206, random access is performed. After receiving the HO commend, the UE initiates a random access procedure to the target base station”; wherein the 2nd network device is interpreted as the target base station; [0070] discloses “…. the security algorithm of the target base station and a system message of the target base station.”;).
You doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first message is used to request security verification-based first system information and that the above steps are performed while ethe terminal device is in a RRC inactive state.
In You, since the security algorithm is sent to the target base station, requesting security verification is obvious to try else there would be no need for sending the security algorithm (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the security algorithm to perform security verification, as this would enhance security as is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Rugeland discloses performing configuration information while the terminal device is in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state ([0055] discloses “In one embodiment, a method at a UE or wireless terminal for handling idle mode measurement results includes receiving and storing idle mode measurement configurations from a source cell when entering a power saving state (e.g., RRC IDLE, RRC IDLE with suspended RRC connection, RRC INACTIVE)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use Rugeland’s RRC inactive state for performing configuration steps in the system of Yamane because this would ensure that all security parameters are set up before any real communication is performed. This is very common and standard procedure in wireless systems and helps in quick resumption and extending battery life.
Regarding claim 2, You discloses the method further comprises:
receiving second indication information of the second network device, wherein the second indication information that indicates that the second network device supports the security verification-based system information ([0040] discloses “In addition, the target base station also configures a Radio Resource Control (RRC) reconfiguration (RRC Connection Reconfiguration) message for the UE. The RRC message includes mobility control information, which may include a Random Access Channel (RACH) resource, a Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI), the security algorithm of the target base station…”; wherein a match would indicate support).
Regarding claim 3, You does not explicitly disclose the first message is a radio resource control (RRC) system information request message or a dedicated system information request message.
However, You discloses using RRC messages when the target base station sends a message to the UE ([0040]).
Therefore, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use RRC messaging format for the 1st message as RRC messages are well known and commonly used in the art.
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 10 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Memory and processor are disclosed by You (Fig. 8).
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 1.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 - 9, 13 - 18 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.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to clock signal generation:
Ishii (US 20240381213 A1) discloses applicability of system information provided by a conditional reconfiguration.
Morchon (US 20240373312 A1) discloses system and method for efficient upload or download of transmission data over mobile access devices.
Jung et al. (US 20240349129 A1) discloses group-based mobility configuration.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights