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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 October 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 22 October 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 22 October 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 6 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 18, said claims are rendered unclear because the claims contradict the independent claims. In independent claim 1 and independent claim 15, the claims state that the “additional uplink data” is communicated prior to “receiving an indication of whether the suspended radio connection between the UE and the RAN has been resumed” (Claims, 22 October 2024). However, Claim 6 and Claim 18 both indicate that the “additional uplink data” is sent, or communicated, “in response to the indication that the suspended connection has been resumed” (Claims, 22 October 2024). Here, Claim 6 and Claim 18 are contradicting Applicant’s independent claims. For the purpose of examination, Claim 6 and Claim 18 will be interpreted to be consistent with Claim 1 and Claim 15.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 11-12, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van et al. (US 20210298111 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Van”, See IDS(22 October 2024): U.S. Patent Documents: Citation No. A).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 3, Van discloses the method of claim 1.
Van further discloses wherein:
the lower layer is a Radio Resource Control (RRC) layer (¶9-10 & ¶21, Van discloses that the lower layer is the RRC communication layer).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 8, Van discloses the method of claim 1.
Van further discloses wherein:
the indication indicates the suspended radio connection has been suspended (¶125 & Fig. 5 (518), Van discloses that the indication indicates that the RRC connection is not resumed, or fall backed).
Regarding Claim 11, Van discloses the method of claim 1.
Van further discloses wherein:
the procedure for sending the uplink data with the suspended radio connection is a small data transmission (SDT) procedure (¶14 & ¶21, Van discloses that the procedure for sending an initial NAS PDU, or small data transmission, is during a suspended connection is an early data transmission (EDT)).
Regarding Claim 12, Van discloses the method of claim 1.
Van further discloses wherein:
the uplink data is a non-access stratum (NAS) packet (¶122 & ¶124 & Fig. 5 (512->516), Van discloses that the initial NAS protocol data unit (PDU) for uplink transmission is a NAS packet).
Regarding Claim 15, Van discloses a user equipment comprising:
a transceiver (¶108 & Fig. 4, Van discloses a user equipment (UE) including a radio frequency (RF) interface 209); and
a processing hardware (¶108 & Fig. 4, Van discloses that the UE further includes a processor 201),
the UE configured to:
send, by an upper layer of a protocol communication stack to a layer associated with controlling radio resources, a request (¶9-10 & ¶21, Van discloses sending, by an upper layer of a user equipment (UE) to a lower layer of the UE, a request where the lower layer is a radio resource control (RRC) communication layer and the lower layer is a non-access stratum (NAS) communication layer) to resume a suspended radio connection between the UE and a radio access network (RAN) (¶9-10 & ¶21, Van discloses that the request is a request to the lower layer to resume a radio resource control (RRC) connection between the UE and a wireless network),
send, by the upper layer to a lower layer and subsequently to the sending of the request, uplink data for transmission to a radio access network (RAN) (¶122 & ¶124 & Fig. 5 (512->516), Van discloses sending, by the NAS communication layer of the UE to a RRC communication layer of the UE, an early data transmission (EDT) including an initial NAS protocol data unit (PDU) for uplink transmission to wireless network),
communicate, between the upper layer and the lower layer and subsequently to the sending of the request, (i) additional uplink data or (ii) downlink data received from the RAN (¶122 & ¶124 & Fig. 5 (512->516), Van discloses sending, by the NAS communication layer of the UE to a RRC communication layer of the UE, other data of the EDT where the other data includes CP-EDT, UP-EDT, a random access request message 3, and an RRC message. Examiner correlates the other data to "additional uplink data"), and
receive, by the upper layer and after a procedure for sending the uplink data with the suspended radio connection is completed, an indication of whether the suspended radio connection between the UE and the RAN has been resumed (¶125 & Fig. 5 (518), Van discloses receiving, by the UE and after the EDT procedure for sending the initial NAS PDU, an indication indicating the RRC connection is resumed or fall backed).
Regarding Claim 16, Van discloses the UE of claim 15.
Van further discloses wherein:
the indication indicates the suspended radio connection has been resumed (¶125 & Fig. 5 (518), Van discloses that the indication indicates that the RRC connection is resumed).
Regarding Claim 18, Van discloses the UE of claim 16.
Van further discloses wherein to communicate the additional uplink data, the UE is configured to:
send the additional uplink data to the lower layer in response to the indication that the suspended connection has been resumed (¶122 & ¶124 & Fig. 5 (512->516), Van discloses sending, by the NAS communication layer of the UE to a RRC communication layer of the UE, other data of the EDT where the other data includes CP-EDT, UP-EDT, a random access request message 3, and an RRC message. Examiner correlates the other data to "additional uplink data").
Regarding Claim 20, Van discloses the UE of claim 15.
Van further discloses wherein:
the indication indicates the suspended radio connection has been suspended (¶125 & Fig. 5 (518), Van discloses that the indication indicates that the RRC connection is not resumed, or fall backed).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van in view of Wang et al. (US 20240121847 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 2, Van discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Van does not disclose wherein: the lower layer is a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer.
Wang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein:
the lower layer is a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer (¶112, Wang discloses that a lower layer may be a Packet Date Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer that performs an integrity check during small data transfer (SDT)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van by requiring that the lower layer is a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer as taught by Wang because small data transmission (SDT) is improved by enabling security during SDT procedure (Wang, Abstract).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van in view of Kim et al. (US 20220232659 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 5, Van discloses the method of claim 4.
However, Van does not disclose wherein receiving the indication that the suspended radio connection has been resumed includes: receiving, at the lower layer, an indication from a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer, that transmission of the uplink data to the RAN was successful.
Kim, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein receiving the indication that the suspended radio connection has been resumed includes:
receiving, at the lower layer, an indication from a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer, that transmission of the uplink data to the RAN was successful (¶496 & ¶664, Kim discloses receiving, at the RRC layer of the UE, information within a Media Access Control (MAC) Protocol Date Unit (PDU) where the information indicates the uplink data being successfully decoded).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van by receiving, at the lower layer, an indication from a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer, that transmission of the uplink data to the RAN was successful as taught by Kim because signaling overhead can be reduced and the network may consume less power processing suspend configurations (Kim, ¶507).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van in view of Phuyal et al. (US 20180324869 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Phuyal”).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 19, Van discloses the UE of claim 16.
However, Van does not disclose wherein: the downlink data is received from the RAN with the suspended radio connection.
Phuyal, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein:
the downlink data is received from the RAN with the suspended radio connection (¶135, Phuyal discloses receiving either a downlink data communication or a system information while the RRC connection is in a suspended state).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van by requiring that the downlink data is received from the RAN with the suspended radio connection as taught by Phuyal because small data transmission (SDT) during an RRC suspension is improved by minimizing the signaling overhead to change the RRC suspension (Phuyal, ¶9-10).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van in view of Wang et al. (US 20220124859 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wang2”).
Regarding Claim 9, Van discloses the method of claim 8.
However, Van does not disclose wherein receiving the indication that the suspended radio connection has been suspended includes: receiving, at the lower layer, an indication that the RAN transmitted a release indication in a MAC protocol data unit (PDU).
Wang2, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein receiving the indication that the suspended radio connection has been suspended includes:
receiving, at the lower layer, an indication that the RAN transmitted a release indication in a MAC protocol data unit (PDU) (¶96 & Fig. 3, Wang2 discloses receiving, at the UE, a MAC PDU including an RRC Connection Release where the RRC Connection Release indicates that the eNB performed a suspension).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van by receiving, at the lower layer, an indication that the RAN transmitted a release indication in a MAC protocol data unit (PDU) as taught by Wang2 because efficiency of EDT is improved by enabling the context of the terminal device to be transferred to not transferred (Wang2, ¶3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van in view of Yue et al. (US 20250185106 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yue”).
Regarding Claim 10, Van discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Van does not disclose wherein the communicating includes receiving the downlink data from the lower layer prior to the receiving of the indication of whether the suspended radio connection between the UE and the RAN has been resumed.
Yue, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the communicating includes receiving the downlink data from the lower layer prior to the receiving of the indication of whether the suspended radio connection between the UE and the RAN has been resumed (¶107-112, Yue discloses receiving a downlink (DL) small data transmission (SDT) prior to reception of a response to a first RRC Resume request).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van by receiving the downlink data from the lower layer prior to the receiving of the indication of whether the suspended radio connection between the UE and the RAN has been resumed as taught by Yue because an RRC Resume procedure is improved by sending additional RRC Resume requests in the event of a radio link failure during a DL SDT (Yue, ¶112).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van in view of Kim et al. (US 20220225472 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Kim2”).
Regarding Claim 13, Van discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Van does not disclose [the method] further comprising: sending, in response to receiving the uplink data from the upper layer, and from the lower layer to a MAC layer, (i) a request to resume the radio connection and (ii) an SDT indication.
Kim2, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches [the method] further comprising:
sending, in response to receiving the uplink data from the upper layer, and from the lower layer to a MAC layer, (i) a request to resume the radio connection and (ii) an SDT indication (¶311, Kim2 discloses sending, in response to receiving uplink data at the RRC layer, a message comprising (i) an RRC resume request message and (ii) an SDT indication).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van by sending, in response to receiving the uplink data from the upper layer, and from the lower layer to a MAC layer, (i) a request to resume the radio connection and (ii) an SDT indication as taught by Kim2 because small data transmission (SDT) is improved by storing a context of a wireless device such that a first base station can receive uplink data associated with the SDT from a second base station (Kim2, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, Van in view of Kim2 discloses the method of claim 13.
Kim2, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches [the method] further comprising:
generating, at the MAC layer, a MAC PDU message using the request to resume the radio connection and the SDT indication (¶311, Kim2 discloses generating, at the MAC layer, a message comprising (i) an RRC resume request message and (ii) a MAC PDU indicating the SDT indication).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van in view of Kim2 by generating, at the MAC layer, a MAC PDU message using the request to resume the radio connection and the SDT indication as taught by Kim2 because small data transmission (SDT) is improved by storing a context of a wireless device such that a first base station can receive uplink data associated with the SDT from a second base station (Kim2, Abstract).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights