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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 08/20/2024 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
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.
Independent Claim 1, 10
Claim(s) 1, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shukair (US-20140201454).
As to claim 1, 10: Shukair teaches an electronic device comprising: a transceiver; and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to transmit, via the transceiver and to a second electronic device, a request for a wireless communication session with the second electronic device ([0065] The UE 115-c may send an RRC connection request 310 to a base station (BS) 105-c as part of the call setup procedure. In return, the BS 105-c may send an RRC connection response 315 to the UE 115-c. Based on the request 310 and the response 315 (and any other suitable communications or negotiations), an RRC connection 320 may be established between the UE 115-c and the BS 105-c), communicate, via the transceiver, one or more first wireless signals during the wireless communication session with the second electronic device ([0106] The UE 115 may then transmit an IMS (or call setup) message to the base station using the RRC connection at block 715. Alternatively, the UE 115 may receive an IMS (or call setup) message from the base station over the RRC connection), and after communicating the one or more first wireless signals ([0107] The UE 115 may start a timer at block 720 upon detecting or otherwise determining that the IMS message has been sent (or received)), extend the wireless communication session by transmitting, via the transceiver and to the second electronic device, one or more second wireless signals ([0070, 109] where the UE 115 may transmit at least one padding message to the base station to maintain the RRC connection for VoLTE call setup) based on no wireless signals being communicated via the wireless communication session for a duration of time ([0108] If no IMS message is detected or otherwise determined to have been sent and/or received, the method may proceed to block 735, where the UE 115 may determine whether the timer has expired or lapsed).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454) in view of Hu (US-20220045736).
As to claim 2: Shukair teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communication session comprises a small data transfer (SDT) in accordance with Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 17. However, Hu teaches wherein the wireless communication session comprises a small data transfer (SDT) in accordance with Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 17 ([0037-40]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SDT, taught by Hu, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead and power consumption. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Hu and Shukair in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454) in view of Parichehrehteroujeni (WO-2023033701-A1).
As to claim 3: Shukair teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive, from an application executed by the processing circuitry, an indication indicative of an expected duration of the wireless communication session. However, Par teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive, from an application executed by the processing circuitry, an indication indicative of an expected duration of the wireless communication session (29:24-35 an AS of the wireless device 130, e.g., the RRC layer, may receive, together with an Application Layer indication, an associated timer or time indication, e.g., indicating, together with a Session Start Indication, an expected duration time for the session).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement expected duration, taught by Par, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine how much resources to commit to session. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Par and Shukair in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454), Parichehrehteroujeni (WO-2023033701-A1) in view of Tsai (WO-2021213505-A1).
As to claim 4: Shukair teaches the electronic device of claim 3.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to transmit, via the transceiver, the request for the wireless communication session as a request for a small data transfer (SDT) based on the expected duration of the wireless communication session. However, Par teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to transmit, via the transceiver, the request for the wireless communication session as a request for a small data transfer (SDT) based on the expected duration of the wireless communication session (29:24-35 an AS of the wireless device 130, e.g., the RRC layer, may receive, together with an Application Layer indication, an associated timer or time indication, e.g., indicating, together with a Session Start Indication, an expected duration time for the session).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement expected duration, taught by Par, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine how much resources to commit to session. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Par and Shukair in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Shukair may not explicitly teach being less than a threshold amount of time, and transmit, via the transceiver, the request for the wireless communication session as a request for a non-SDT communication session based on the expected duration of the wireless communication session being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time. However, Tsai teaches being less than a threshold amount of time ([0138] if time duration is shorter than a first threshold, UE may use SDT), and transmit, via the transceiver, the request for the wireless communication session as a request for a non-SDT communication session based on the expected duration of the wireless communication session being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time ([0138] if the time duration is longer than a first threshold, the UE may trigger an SR, initiate an RA procedure, and/or initiate an RRC resume procedure).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement threshold, taught by Tsai, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and select SDT or non-SDT to make efficient usage of resources. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tsai and Shukair in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454) in view of Rugeland (US-20220116810), Lincke (US-20020109706).
As to claim 5, 11: Shukair teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive from an application executed by the processing circuitry, an indication of data packets expected to be received from the second electronic device. However, Rugeland teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive from an application executed by the processing circuitry, an indication of data packets expected to be received from the second electronic device ([0110, 111] expected traffic).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement expected data, taught by Rugeland, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and adapt radio operation to make efficient usage of resources. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Rugelandin a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Shukair may not explicitly teach and transmit, via the transceiver, the one or more second wireless signals based on one or more data packets of the data packets expected to be received having not been received. However, Lincke teaches and transmit, via the transceiver, the one or more second wireless signals based on one or more data packets of the data packets expected to be received having not been received ([0157, 594, 580] retransmit request).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement retransmission request, taught by Lincke, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve reliability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Lincke in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454) in view of Rugeland (US-20220116810).
As to claim 6: Shukair teaches the electronic device of claim 1 … receive, via the transceiver and from the second electronic device, a release message to end the wireless communication session ([0004, 95] RRC release).
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive, from an application executed by the processing circuitry, an indication of data packets expected to be received from the second electronic device. However, Tsai teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive, from an application executed by the processing circuitry, an indication of data packets expected to be received from the second electronic device ([0110, 0111]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement expected data, taught by Rugeland, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and adapt radio operation to make efficient usage of resources. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Rugelandin a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shukair (US-20140201454).
As to claim 8: Shukair teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second electronic device comprises or is included in a base station of a cellular network ([0003, 51, 53, 57]).
As to claim 14: Shukair teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to receive one or more data packets generated by an application executed by the processing circuitry ([0042, 43, 68, 69] after transmitting an initial IMS message during call setup, the IMS stack may start a timer T1), generate the one or more second wireless signals based on receiving the one or more data packets ([0053, 46, 70] if timer T1 lapses or expires, the IMS stack may send a padding message to maintain the RRC connection).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454) in view of Agiwal (US-20220022247).
As to claim 9: Shukair teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
However, Agiwal teaches wherein the request for the wireless communication session comprises a RRCResumeRequest ([0074, 85, 108]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement RRC Resume Request, taught by Agiwal, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and initiate communication session without having to perform a new RRC connection setup . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Agiwal in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454), Rugeland (US-20220116810), Lincke (US-20020109706) in view of Acosta (US-6496520).
As to claim 12: Shukair teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to transmit, via the transceiver, each of the one or more second wireless signals at a time interval until the data packets expected to be received have been received. However, Acosta teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to transmit, via the transceiver, each of the one or more second wireless signals at a time interval until the data packets expected to be received have been received (14:43-60 This cycle of sending packets; the receiving protocol initiating a timeout on the arrival of a first of the packets; at the termination of the time out period, if a header packet has arrived, the receiving machine requesting a retransmission of the only the particular missing packets; and the resending of only the missing packets, is repeated until the entire data payload is delivered to the receiving device).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement retransmission request, taught by Acosta, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve reliability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Acosta in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454), Rugeland (US-20220116810), Lincke (US-20020109706) in view of Hussain (US-20060227811).
As to claim 13: Shukair teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the data packets expected to be received comprise one or more push flags. However, Hussain teaches wherein the data packets expected to be received comprise one or more push flags ([0077] Push flag).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Push flag, taught by Hussain, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Hussain in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454) in view of Agiwal (US-20220022247).
As to claim 15: Shukair teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more second wireless signals comprise the one or more data packets. However, Agiwal teaches wherein the one or more second wireless signals comprise the one or more data packets ([0085, 108] The user data are ciphered and integrity protected (only for DRBs configured with UP integrity protection) and transmitted on DTCH multiplexed with the RRCResumeRequest/RRCResumeRequest1 message on CCCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement carrying data and other signaling, taught by Agiwal, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead and power consumption. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Agiwal in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454) in view of Tseng (US-20190053324).
As to claim 16: Shukair teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to receive, via the transceiver and from the base station, an indication of the duration of time. However, Tseng teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to receive, via the transceiver and from the base station, an indication of the duration of time (claim 9, claim 11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement duration of time, taught by Tseng, into the communication system, taught by Tseng, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and avoid connection teardown and reestablishment. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Tseng in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20140201454) in view of Tabet (US-20150304883).
As to claim 17: Shukair teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to receive, from the application, an indication of the duration of time. However, Tabet teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to receive, from the application, an indication of the duration of time ([0257] baseband layer of a wireless user equipment (UE) device: receiving an indication of an amount of time until next uplink and/or downlink application data is expected by an application layer of the UE from the application layer of the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UL/DL timing, taught by Tabet, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and specify inactivity timing. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Independent Claim 18
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20150201454) in view of Agiwal (US-20220022247).
As to claim 18: Shukair a computer-implemented method comprising: … and receiving, via the transceiver, one or more second wireless signals that extend the SDT wireless communication session based on no wireless signals being communicated via the SDT wireless communication session for a duration of time ([0108, 121-126] If no IMS message is detected or otherwise determined to have been sent and/or received, the method may proceed to block 735, where the UE 115 may determine whether the timer has expired or lapsed).
Shukair may not explicitly teach receiving, via a transceiver, a request for a small data transmit (SDT) wireless communication session; communicating, via the transceiver, one or more first wireless signals during the SDT wireless communication session. However, Agiwal teaches receiving, via a transceiver, a request for a small data transmit (SDT) wireless communication session ([0085, 231, 240, 289] in the preconfigured PUSCH resource, the UE sends an RRCResumeRequest / RRCResumeRequest1 to the gNB); communicating, via the transceiver, one or more first wireless signals during the SDT wireless communication session ([0085, 218, 245] in the response to the small data transmission, UE may receive a signal (RRC message or DCI)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SDT, taught by Agiwal, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead and power consumption. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Agiwal and Shukair in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair (US-20150201454), Agiwal (US-20220022247) in view of Tseng (US-20190053324).
As to claim 19: Shukair teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 18.
Shukair may not explicitly teach comprising sending, via the transceiver, a second indication of the duration of time. However, Tseng teaches comprising sending, via the transceiver, a second indication of the duration of time (claim 9, claim 11, [0029] BS 302 sends an RRC connection setup or resume response back to UE 301 (MSG4), which comprises RRC release information and an inactivity timer value).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement duration of time, taught by Tseng, into the communication system, taught by Tseng, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and avoid connection teardown and reestablishment. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Shukair and Tseng in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 20: Shukair teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 18.
Shukair may not explicitly teach wherein the transceiver is of a base station of a 3rd generation (3G) cellular network, a 4th generation (4G) cellular network, a 5th generation (5G) cellular network, or a 6ᵗʰ generation (6G) cellular network. However, Tseng teaches wherein the transceiver is of a base station of a 3rd generation (3G) cellular network, a 4th generation (4G) cellular network, a 5th generation (5G) cellular network, or a 6ᵗʰ generation (6G) cellular network ([0002, 4, 53, 129]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement LTE, taught by Tseng, into the communication system, taught by Shukair, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tseng and Shukair in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights