DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-26 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/24, 11/15/24, and 2/3/25 have been considered by the Examiner.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-15, 17, 18, & 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PCT Publication WO2021/088471 (hereinafter, “Huawei”).1
Regarding claims 1 and 14:
Huawei discloses a wireless device and method performed by a wireless device for use in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving signaling indicating how the wireless device is to generate a message authentication code (MAC) for integrity protecting a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message that requests resumption of an RRC connection (page 13: “401. The source base station sends an RRC release message carrying second indication information to a terminal device, where the second indication information is used to indicate support for restoring the MAC value according to the first parameter set verification; the terminal device receives the RRC carrying the second indication information” [emphasis Examiner’s]), wherein a first way to generate the MAC is to input a first set of parameters into an integrity algorithm and a second way to generate the MAC is to input a second set of parameters into the same algorithm or a different integrity algorithm, wherein the first set of parameters is a subset of the second set of parameters, and wherein the signaling indicates which of the first way or the second way the wireless device is to use to generate the MAC (pages 8-9, beginning with “As an example, there are two ways to calculate the recovery MAC value” continuing through to at least page 9, 3rd paragraph: “In the embodiment of the present application, which parameter set is used by the UE to calculate the restored MAC value, and correspondingly, which parameter set needs to be used by the base station to verify the restored MAC value”; see also page 9, penultimate paragraph: “The second type of base station supports the verification of the restored MAC value calculated by introducing additional parameters, that is, supports the verification of the restored MAC value obtained through the first parameter set”); generating the MAC according to the signaling (page 13: “402. The terminal device calculates the restored MAC value according to the manner indicated by the second indication information, that is, the UE calculates the restored MAC value according to the first parameter set.” [emphasis Examiner’s]); and transmitting the RRC message and the generated MAC (page 13: “403. The terminal device sends an RRC recovery request message carrying the first indication information and the recovered MAC value to the target base station, and the target base station receives the RRC recovery request message carrying the first indication information and the recovered MAC value.”).
Regarding claims 2 and 15: Huawei further discloses wherein the signaling indicates whether, or that, the wireless device is to generate the MAC as a function of one or more of: a cause field indicating a cause for requesting resumption of the RRC connection; and a Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) (page 8: the former at “When the UE calculates the recovery MAC value, in addition to the above parameters, additional parameters may be introduced: such as a resume cause value or an RRC resume request (RRC resume request) message is used as an input parameter to calculate the recovery MAC value” [emphasis Examiner’s]; the latter at “The calculation parameters for recovering the MAC value include: […] Source cell radio network temporary identification (source cell access radio network temporary, source C-RNTI)”).
Regarding claims 4 and 17: Huawei further discloses wherein the signaling comprises or is included in System Information (page 10, last paragraph: “For example, the broadcast message may include a system information block (SIB) or a master information block (MIB), and so on”).
Regarding claims 5 and 18: Huawei further discloses comprising receiving an RRC Release message that indicates the wireless device is to release or suspend the RRC connection, wherein the signaling is included in the RRC Release message (page 10: “As an example, the second message may be an RRC release (RRC release) message, or a broadcast message, etc., which is not limited in the embodiment of the present application.”; see also the preceding paragraph: “202. If the source base station supports the recovery MAC value obtained by verifying the first parameter set, the source base station sends a second message carrying second indication information to the UE, and the second indication information may be used to instruct to verify the recovery according to the first parameter set. MAC value; the UE receives the second message carrying the second indication information.” [emphasis Examiner’s]).
Regarding claims 8 and 21: Huawei further discloses wherein the signaling is received from a network node and indicates how the wireless device is to generate the MAC for integrity protecting the RRC message that requests resumption of the RRC connection when the network node is a source or target of that resumption (page 13, steps 401-403 as previously discussed supra).
Regarding claims 9 and 22: Huawei further discloses wherein the signaling indicates how the wireless device is to generate the MAC for integrity protecting the RRC message that requests a certain target network node or a certain target cell to resume an RRC connection (page 8: “The calculation parameters for recovering the MAC value include: […] Target cell ID (target cell ID)”).
Regarding claims 10 and 23: Huawei further discloses comprising: generating an RRC message for requesting a certain target network node or a certain target cell to resume an RRC connection previously established at a certain source network node or a certain source cell; deciding, based at least in part on the received signaling, how the wireless device is to generate the MAC for integrity protecting the generated RRC message; generating the MAC for integrity protecting the generated RRC message, according to said deciding; and transmitting the RRC message and the generated MAC (page 13, steps 401-403 as previously discussed supra).
Regarding claims 11 and 24: Huawei further discloses comprising transmitting, from the wireless device, signaling indicating how the wireless device has generated, will generate, or is capable of generating the MAC for integrity protecting the RRC message that requests resumption of the RRC connection (page 11: “301. The UE sends a first message carrying first indication information to a source base station, where the first indication information may be used to instruct to calculate a restoration MAC value according to a first parameter set; the source base station receives the first message carrying first indication information.”).
Regarding claims 12 and 25: Huawei further discloses wherein the signaling indicates that the wireless device is to generate the MAC using a whole RRCResumeRequest message as input to an integrity algorithm (page 13, 2nd paragraph: “In the embodiment of the present application, the first parameter set includes one or more of a recovery reason value or a radio resource control RRC recovery request message.” [emphasis Examiner’s]).
Regarding claims 13 and 26:
The rejection(s) of claims 1 & 14 apply mutatis mutandis to claims 13 & 26.
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.
Claims 3, 6, 16, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei as applied to claims 1 & 14 above, and further in view of Cho (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0249479).
Regarding claims 3 and 16: Huawei does not explicitly disclose generating a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) packet that conveys the RRC message and that includes the MAC in a header of the PDCP packet. However, Cho discloses a related invention pertaining to inter alia 3GPP/LTE mobile networks (Cho, e.g. paragraphs 0035, 0039, & 0066-0068; cf. Huawei at page 7, first two paragraphs last paragraph) wherein it is disclosed that PDCP packets are typically used to communicate MACs for use in integrity protection algorithms (Cho, paragraph 0375). It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application for Huawei to use PDCP packets as the means to communicate the MAC in that invention, as this was clearly a known option within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art, to achieve the predictable purpose of securely communicating the MAC in a conventional 3GPP/LTE network (Cho, Ibid).
Regarding claims 6 and 19: Huawei does not explicitly disclose receiving a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message, wherein the signaling is included in the NAS message. However, Cho discloses a related invention pertaining to inter alia 3GPP/LTE mobile networks (Cho, e.g. paragraphs 0035, 0039, & 0066-0068; cf. Huawei at page 7, first two paragraphs last paragraph) wherein it is disclosed that Non-Access Stratum protocols are typically used in such networks to support the establishment, maintenance, and release of connections between the user equipment and network nodes (Cho, paragraph 0072; see also paragraph 0124). It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application for Huawei to use a Non-Access Stratum message to communicate the signaling, as this was clearly a known option within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art, to achieve the predictable purpose of [re]establishing a secure connection in a conventional 3GPP/LTE network (Cho, Ibid).
Claims 7 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei as applied to claims 1 & 14 above, and further in view of “Discussion on security algorithm negotiation issue for Resume, RNAU, and Reestablishment” (hereinafter, “Huawei II”; from the IDS filed 10/11/24 [page 3, reference #8]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20: Huawei does not explicitly disclose wherein the MAC is a resumeMAC-I.
However, Huawei II discloses wherein it was well-known knowledge in the art that a MAC usable for the purpose of resuming a connection was called a resumeMAC-I (page 8, “2.3.1.2 When target gNB implements old algorithm”, line items #3 and #5). It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to designate the MAC from the Huawei reference as a resumeMAC-I, as this was a known option within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art for ensuring the integrity of an RRC resume connection (Huawei II, entire article).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A GYORFI whose telephone number is (571)272-3849. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
THOMAS A. GYORFI
Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/THOMAS A GYORFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2435 2/21/2026
1 This document was originally cited in the IDS filed 11/15/24; however, the citations to this reference in this Action are found in the English language translation cited in the subsequent IDS filed 2/3/25.