DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The claim 28 is dependent from a cancelled claim. In this instance, the claim 8 has been cancelled.
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.
Claims 21, 23-26, 28-31, 33-36, 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rayavarapu et al. (US Pg Pub 2013/0039287), hereinafter referred to as Rayavarapu.
For claims 21 and 31, Rayavarapu discloses determining that a terminal device is in a suspended state (RRC_SUSPENDED; see item 1 in figure 28) and that the first access network element (old eNB 102a) cannot serve the terminal device (UE 101) when the terminal device (UE 101) is recovered to a connected state (need to reactivate; this feature is suggested because the figure 28 shows the new eNB 102b serving the UE instead of the old eNB 102a); and sending a context of the terminal device (UE context) to a second access network element (new eNB 102b; see figure 28 step 6), wherein the terminal device (UE 101) recovers to the connected state (RRC Connected) based on the context (UE context; the UE context is used to re-establish the RRC connection; see paragraph 0574), wherein the second access network element (new eNB 102b) is configured to serve the terminal device when the terminal device is recovered to the connected state (RRC Connection reconfiguration complete; see figure 28), or the second access network element is configured to send the context to a third access network element that serves the terminal device when the terminal device is recovered to the connected state (this feature is not given patentable weight because it is drawn to a non-selected option. Rayavarapu discloses forwarding context from an old eNB to a new eNB, and also context retrieval from another node (including another eNB or MME). Rayavarapu further states that an eNB “may attempt to fetch the UE context from the old eNB” and that the old eNB can provide the UE context to the new eNB; see paragraphs 336, 564–575, 619, 652–655).
Specifically for claim 31, Rayavarapu discloses the use of processors and memories (see paragraph 0296).
For claims 23 and 33, Rayavarapu anticipates wherein determining, that the first access network element (eNB 102a) cannot serve the terminal device (UE 101) when the terminal device is recovered to the connected state comprises: determining that the first access network element (eNB 102a) cannot serve the terminal device (UE 101) when the terminal device is recovered to the connected state based on ephemeris information or expected behavior information (movement of the UE) of the terminal device (this feature is anticipated because the eNB 102a uses the X2 interface to prepare neighboring eNBs for fast re-establishment in case the UE moves into their coverage areas; see paragraphs 0461-0463).
For claims 24 and 34, Rayavarapu anticipates wherein the method further comprises: determining that an access network element that can serve the terminal device when the terminal device is recovered to the connected state cannot obtain the context from the first access network element based on ephemeris information or expected behavior information of the terminal device (movement of the UE into new eNB 102b area; figure 29 step 4 shows the new eNB 102b may not be able receive the context from the old eNB 102a); or determining that a duration for obtaining the context from the first access network element exceeds a first duration based on the ephemeris information or the expected behavior information of the terminal device (this feature is not given patentable weight because it is drawn to an unselected option).
For claims 25, 30, 35 and 40, Rayavarapu discloses wherein sending the context of the terminal device to the second access network element comprises: sending a container (UE context containers) to the second access network element (eNB 102b) through an access management network element (MME 103b; see figure 29 step 14), wherein the container (UE context containers) comprises the context sent by the first access network element (eNB 102a) to the second access network element (figure 23 shows the eNB 102a sends the context containers to the MME 103b and also sends the UE context information to other eNBs; see paragraph 0461 and figure 23).
For claims 26 and 36, Rayavarapu discloses receiving a request message (RRC Reestablishment request) from a terminal device (UE 101; see figure 29 step 3), wherein a connection (RRC connection) is recovered based on the request message (the RRC Reestablishment request starts the procedure for reconfigure the RRC connection; see figure 29); determining that a context of the terminal device cannot be obtained from a first access network element (old eNB 102a; figure 29 step 4 shows the new eNB 102b may not be able receive the context from the old eNB 102a), wherein the terminal device (UE 101) recovers the connection based on the context (UE context; the UE context is used to re-establish the RRC connection; see paragraph 0574), and the first access network element (old eNB 102a) serves the terminal device (UE 101) before the terminal device requests to recover the connection (reactivate connection; figure 26 shows the eNB 102a was serving the UE 101 before the RRC suspension step in 1 in figure 29); and obtaining the context (UE context containers) from an access management network element (MME; see figure 29 step 14), wherein the context is sent by the first access network element to the access management network element (figure 23 shows the eNB 102a sends the context containers to the MME 103b and also sends the UE context information to other eNBs; see paragraph 0461 and figure 23).
Specifically for claim 36, Rayavarapu discloses the use of processors and memories (see paragraph 0296).
For claims 28 and 38, Rayavarapu anticipates wherein determining that the context of the terminal device cannot be obtained from the first access network element comprises: determining that the context cannot be obtained from the first access network element based on one or more pieces of information of duration in which the terminal device is in a suspended state (this feature is anticipated because Rayavarapu uses a timer to indicate expiry of suspended RRC sessions. Since expired RRC connections have their data scrubbed, there is no context that can be obtained from the eNB 102a; see paragraphs 0370, 0372), ephemeris information, or hop count information, wherein the hop count information indicates an accumulated quantity of times that the context is transferred between access network elements in a time period from a time point at which the terminal device enters the suspended state to a current time point (this feature is not given patentable weight since it is drawn to an unselected option).
For claims 29 and 39, Rayavarapu anticipates wherein the method further comprises: receiving time information of entering the suspended state (entering suspension) by the terminal device (UE; the use of common suspension timers among all the nodes anticipates this feature because start timer information would need to be shared amongst the nodes; see paragraph 0370) or the hop count information.
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 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 22, 27, 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayavarapu in view of Chen et al. (US Pg Pub 2024/0334525), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
For claims 22, 27, 32 and 37, Rayavarapu discloses the handover of RRC connections among eNBs (see figures 28 and 29). Rayavarapu does not disclose the use of satellites. Chen discloses the handover of RRC connections (see figure 6). Chen further discloses wherein the first access network element or the second access network element is deployed on a satellite (satellite integrated with base station functionality; see figure 3 item 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Chen’s arrangement in Rayavarapu invention to expand coverage beyond user locations (Chen, paragraph 0024).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY M RUTKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
JEFFREY M. RUTKOWSKI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2415
/JEFFREY M RUTKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights